RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (16) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: RFJE's Personal Thread, Because our toilet is already cluttered< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,10:18   

I hope no one minds me setting up this dedicated thread for RFJE. The Bathroom Wall is already clogged with Denial's Devious Delusions and needs no further obstructions getting in the way of knob jokes, assorted off-topicery and LOLcats.

Hence I reproduce RFJE's initial foray into AtBC here and fervently hope he'll join us on this thread.

       
Quote
Evolution and the Origin of Life: Real Problems

The origin of life is one of the biggest problems for evolution, because of it's committment to naturalism.  That is, that all processes in the universe are explainable using only natural laws.  Virtually all other sciences can be explained by natural laws, but there are very real and ignored problems with  how the first life began.

We have all heard of the "primordial soup" model of life.  That at a point in early earth history, the molten earth cooled, and oceans formed.  As rain fell, chemicals in a hypothetical pool organized into proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates.  These molecules then organized into  cellular structures and more complex proteins, DNA, and cell membranes.  

The following are proven chemistry facts that are not shared with the average science illiterate population.  

Observable Chemistry Fact #1

Presence of water is a problem: Some amino acids break down in water by the process called hydrolysis.  It actually breaks the bonds of the amino acids preventing them from forming  the chains that build proteins.  Stanley Miller, who attempted to create life in a test tube in the early 1950's, knew this, and isolated the products in order to avoid this destructive reaction.

Observable Chemistry Fact #2

Presence of Oxygen: Stanley Miller purposely left out oxygen in his experiment.  Why?  Because he knew that oxygen would be corrosive and tend to destroy the organic compounds for life.

Some scientists have suggested that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain oxygen, but then the atmosphere would have had no ozone layer  to sheild the compounds from  the ultraviolet rays of the sun---a catch 22 for evolutionists.  ALso, is there any evidence for a non-oxygen atmosphere?  

ANOTHER SIGNIFIGANT PROBLEM

Amino acids in living things

1. There are 2000 types amino acids, of which are only 20 are found in living things.  We're talking mathematics working against it now.

2. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM--All amino acids come in left and right handed forms called "enantiomers."   Living things have only the left handed amino acids.  When Stanley Miller attempted life in a test tube, he produced only a racemic mixture of right and left handed amino acids that is detrimental to life.

So intelligent life tried to set up a random mixture of supposed ingredients and could not do it.  It proved that some random amino acids could be produced.

My question is why am I labeled as a propagandist when I consider evidence logically and come up with the conclusion that the mathematical improbability of life starting randomly by solely naturalistic means is astronomically high.  And in the sense of logic and common sense it is illogical to propose that an effect caused itself.


So hello RFJE, welcome, and for the moment (admin approval pending, and unless you've been restricted to the Bathroom Wall for some reason) consider this thread your home.

All replies are best directed here.

Here are the permalinks to the replies already received (as of 16:00 ish GMT).

Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 Link 5 Link 6 Link 7 Link 8 Link 9 Link 10 Link 11 Link 12 Link 13 Link 14 Link 15 Link 16 Link 17 Link 18 Link 19 Link 20 Link 21 Link 22 Link 23 Link 24 Link 25 Link 26 Link 27 Link 28 Link 29 Link 30 Link 31

I hope I've got all the (at least minimally ;)  ) relevant replies in the right order. Let me know if I've messed up.

Right on with the fun!

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,10:57   

Quote
My question is why am I labeled as a propagandist when I consider evidence logically and come up with the conclusion that the mathematical improbability of life starting randomly by solely naturalistic means is astronomically high.

Can I see your working out please?

It's one thing to say it, but another to explain how you came to that conclusion.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,11:32   

Way to go Louis...

You Scientists, always so "exact" with your language, always bringing up your "facts".  You're NEVER going to get a new victim ID Creationist to respond if you restrict them to facts! :(

And BTW - I still think that my idea of labeling this thread and playing off the "expelled" thread by calling it "Expectorated" was Teh Ways To Go.  But hey, what do I know, I'm just a "Mr. Marketing", not a "Real Big Time Working Scientist".  

But seriously, I DO think the special thread is the way to go.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
JonF



Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,11:33   

Quote
These days and nights of fishing were firmly ingrained in my mind, as I toured one of the caverns in northeastern Arkansas.  As we toured, we came upon some burnt wood
on display.  The guide told us that this wood had been carbon 14ed at 800 AD.  The wood had no signs of decay, and it was not fossilized. I made sure by INQUIRY to the guide, to make sure I had heard him correctly and that the wood was not fossilized.

My point is that here was a man that BELIEVED that this un-fossilized wood was 1200 years old--wood that appeared as is it could have been burnt a year ago--wood that was in a damp cave, with sounds of water flowing in it.  

And little ol' me, the independent thinker, asking myself if this man had ever read in one of his textbooks that water and humidity destroys wood.  

Um ...

Water and humidity do not destroy wood.

Things often associated with water and humidity destroy wood.

Fully submerged wood much older than 800 AD has been found. E.g.

Submerged Forest and old Ship Remains in the Solent
Ballard Finds Traces of Ancient Habitation Beneath Black Sea

Here's an interesting one about the same age as your sample:

Maya Milestone: LSU researcher discovers first wooden ruins, unique artifact from Maya civilization

Ya know what?

I bet you can't come up with a textbook that states that water and humidity destroy wood.

Independent thinking is good. Making up bullshit is bad.

  
JonF



Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,11:42   

Quote
I realize that I'm a newbie here, and the sore thumb in everyone's eyes here.  I don't want to be irritating as I see I am.

You're not a sore thumb. Maybe a pimple. But you are irritating. You're just another of a long parade of unjustifiably arrogant and abysmally ignorant fools.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,12:24   

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 09 2009,17:32)
Way to go Louis...

You Scientists, always so "exact" with your language, always bringing up your "facts".  You're NEVER going to get a new victim ID Creationist to respond if you restrict them to facts! :(

And BTW - I still think that my idea of labeling this thread and playing off the "expelled" thread by calling it "Expectorated" was Teh Ways To Go.  But hey, what do I know, I'm just a "Mr. Marketing", not a "Real Big Time Working Scientist".  

But seriously, I DO think the special thread is the way to go.

Expectorated?

Shit! I missed that! That's a GREAT idea. I GOTS to pay more attention when reading.

AHEM Oh busy moderators, could one of you retitle the thread "Expectorated: RFJE's Personal Thread" please?

Thanks

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,12:28   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,12:24)
AHEM Oh busy moderators, could one of you retitle the thread "Expectorated: RFJE's Personal Thread" please?

Thanks

Louis

Thanks, but really that's ok!  I'm just trying to have some fun with our New BFFs...

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,12:48   

Quote (JonF @ Feb. 09 2009,11:33)
 
Quote
These days and nights of fishing were firmly ingrained in my mind, as I toured one of the caverns in northeastern Arkansas.  As we toured, we came upon some burnt wood
on display.  The guide told us that this wood had been carbon 14ed at 800 AD.  The wood had no signs of decay, and it was not fossilized. I made sure by INQUIRY to the guide, to make sure I had heard him correctly and that the wood was not fossilized.

My point is that here was a man that BELIEVED that this un-fossilized wood was 1200 years old--wood that appeared as is it could have been burnt a year ago--wood that was in a damp cave, with sounds of water flowing in it.  

And little ol' me, the independent thinker, asking myself if this man had ever read in one of his textbooks that water and humidity destroys wood.  

Um ...

Water and humidity do not destroy wood.

Things often associated with water and humidity destroy wood.

Fully submerged wood much older than 800 AD has been found. E.g.

Submerged Forest and old Ship Remains in the Solent
Ballard Finds Traces of Ancient Habitation Beneath Black Sea

Here's an interesting one about the same age as your sample:

Maya Milestone: LSU researcher discovers first wooden ruins, unique artifact from Maya civilization

Ya know what?

I bet you can't come up with a textbook that states that water and humidity destroy wood.

Independent thinking is good. Making up bullshit is bad.

I'm not sure what this anecdote was supposed to prove in the first place, even if RJFE was in fact right about the impossibility of old wet wood.  That there are people who will mindlessly parrot what they've been taught regardless of plain evidence to the contrary all about them?

But he's got to know that already.  After all, he comes from a faith tradition.

--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,13:32   

Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 09 2009,12:48)
Quote (JonF @ Feb. 09 2009,11:33)
   
Quote
These days and nights of fishing were firmly ingrained in my mind, as I toured one of the caverns in northeastern Arkansas.  As we toured, we came upon some burnt wood
on display.  The guide told us that this wood had been carbon 14ed at 800 AD.  The wood had no signs of decay, and it was not fossilized. I made sure by INQUIRY to the guide, to make sure I had heard him correctly and that the wood was not fossilized.

My point is that here was a man that BELIEVED that this un-fossilized wood was 1200 years old--wood that appeared as is it could have been burnt a year ago--wood that was in a damp cave, with sounds of water flowing in it.  

And little ol' me, the independent thinker, asking myself if this man had ever read in one of his textbooks that water and humidity destroys wood.  

Um ...

Water and humidity do not destroy wood.

Things often associated with water and humidity destroy wood.

Fully submerged wood much older than 800 AD has been found. E.g.

Submerged Forest and old Ship Remains in the Solent
Ballard Finds Traces of Ancient Habitation Beneath Black Sea

Here's an interesting one about the same age as your sample:

Maya Milestone: LSU researcher discovers first wooden ruins, unique artifact from Maya civilization

Ya know what?

I bet you can't come up with a textbook that states that water and humidity destroy wood.

Independent thinking is good. Making up bullshit is bad.

I'm not sure what this anecdote was supposed to prove in the first place, even if RJFE was in fact right about the impossibility of old wet wood.  That there are people who will mindlessly parrot what they've been taught regardless of plain evidence to the contrary all about them?

But he's got to know that already.  After all, he comes from a faith tradition.

Also based on his faith tradition ... He last posted early today, so he's got to be dead for @ 3 days, then come back, right?  So, guess we'll see him just in time to buy us all a round on Darwin's Day.

Unfortunately, also based on his faith tradition, he probably lives up to my Great expectations, and will buy us all a round of fruit juice..

Ha Ha - This is him...




--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,15:47   

**LENGTH AND SLIGHT CHEMISTRY WARNING**

Dear RFJE,

As I’ve said already “Hello and Welcome”, I hope you have a productive and enjoyable time here at AtBC. I’m always amused when people come in espousing well refuted canards, erroneous nonsense, and generally being unpleasant. Especially when they then complain that they are somehow persecuted by the less than pleasant replies such behaviour engenders.

I am, however, for the moment going to ignore all that nonsense and focus on the chemical claims you make. I’m also going to ignore the philosophical and biological errors you make re: origin of life/naturalism/evolution. Others can deal with those if they like. What I’m going to do is make a break down of your chemical claims to make sure I have them correct:

 
Quote
Observable Chemistry Fact #1

Presence of water is a problem: Some amino acids break down in water by the process called hydrolysis. It actually breaks the bonds of the amino acids preventing them from forming the chains that build proteins. Stanley Miller, who attempted to create life in a test tube in the early 1950's, knew this, and isolated the products in order to avoid this destructive reaction.


a) Amino acids do not simply “break down” in aqueous solution at any appreciable rate at room temperature (and in the absence of other reagents), nor indeed do dipeptides or polypeptides. You can in fact buy aqueous solutions of most amino acids. The hydrolysis of the amide bond is comparatively difficult to achieve, normally requiring more forcing conditions (strong acid or base, or powerful nucleophiles etc). I think what you are trying to get at is that formation of the peptide/amide bond, which since it is a condensation reaction (i.e. the formation of an amide results in the elimination of a small molecule like water), is hindered by the presence of water. Below I have drawn a simple amino acid and a simple dipeptide (no solution structure is implied) to illustrate the difference for you.



Unfortunately, you are clearly unaware of very basic methods in chemical synthesis. Even though these are not claimed to be the precise routes taken during abiogenesis, they clearly demonstrate that water is not necessarily a hurdle to amide synthesis. Take for example the Schotten
-Baumann conditions for peptide synthesis. This is where a biphasic mixture of solvents, one of which is water and the other a water immiscible organic solvent, are used. The simplistic treatment of the various methods of peptide synthesis as equilibrium processes, and hence trivially subject to Le Chatelier's principle, misses many of the other thermodynamic and kinetic factors and is, in this case at least, erroneous.

Solid phase methods of peptide synthesis or use of activating agents like various carbodiimides etc can also be performed in the presence of water. Water isn’t the problem you think it is. Not only that, aqueous phase syntheses of simple poly/dipeptides are not the only methods proposed for the origins of these sorts of molecules.

b) The Miller-Urey experiment included water as part of the design. The last bit of your claim is mistaken.

 
Quote
Observable Chemistry Fact #2

Presence of Oxygen: Stanley Miller purposely left out oxygen in his experiment. Why? Because he knew that oxygen would be corrosive and tend to destroy the organic compounds for life.

Some scientists have suggested that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain oxygen, but then the atmosphere would have had no ozone layer to sheild the compounds from the ultraviolet rays of the sun---a catch 22 for evolutionists. ALso, is there any evidence for a non-oxygen atmosphere?


a) Oxygen was purposely left out if the Miller-Urey because the best evidence at the time strongly suggested that the early atmosphere had no oxygen in it. Oxygen is a “pollutant” produced by organisms. What Miller and Urey were trying to do was see if simple molecules like amino acids etc could be produced by conditions similar to those proposed on the early earth. Many other experiments of this type have been performed, testing various hypothetical early earth scenarios.

b) Lack of stratospheric ozone is not a problem because UV radiation is not only destructive. It is also positively useful. Many “complex” molecules exist in space (in conditions of vastly greater UV radiation), not only that but UV can promote certain reactions. For example the formose reaction is positively aided by UV radiation.

c) Evidence for the early atmosphere being free of oxygen is found in the composition of rocks dated back to the Siderian period of the Precambrian.

   
Quote
ANOTHER SIGNIFIGANT PROBLEM

Amino acids in living things

1. There are 2000 types amino acids, of which are only 20 are found in living things. We're talking mathematics working against it now.


a) There are vastly more than 2000 possible amino acid types, another basic chemical misunderstanding on your part. The fact that 22 proteinogenic amino acids (plus a few non-proteinogenic ones) are commonly found in modern organisms, is not a mathematical problem for evolutionary biology or abiogenesis. This is no more a problem than the fact that my route to the pub commonly involves me walking via the park rather than via Uzbekistan. Firstly, like my route to the pub, many of the amino acids found in modern organisms are relatively simple (i.e. the R group side chain is not 16 Buckminster-fullerenes linked into a Borromean ring system, it’s a methyl or tolyl group etc). If I were to take a pack of a billion cards and deal 22, that specific 22 card hand is no more or less improbable than any other 22 card hand. There may be reasons the 22 proteinogenic amino acids are the ones we find in modern organisms (thermodynamic stability, specific reactivity etc) but these are very complex and dependant on the chemical environment of the time.

   
Quote
2. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM--All amino acids come in left and right handed forms called "enantiomers." Living things have only the left handed amino acids. When Stanley Miller attempted life in a test tube, he produced only a racemic mixture of right and left handed amino acids that is detrimental to life.


a) There are a myriad of perfectly natural ways for homochirality to arise. Not least is autocatalysis (an example, again not specifically related to abiogenesis, but very indicative is my favourite the Soai reaction). Many other ways like crystal templating and chiral transmission etc. Not only that but once homochiral self-replicating systems like those actually proposed for abiogenesis exist then maintenance of homochirality is evolutionarily more favourable.

b) Again, Miller and Urey were not trying to create life in a test tube, they were trying to discover if simple molecules that are the building blocks of life could be produced by the conditions proposed for the early earth at the time. They could, and were. Miller and Urey did what  they were trying to do.

In conclusion, might I suggest that, instead of posting well refuted common misunderstandings of science on message boards, your missionary zeal inspired thirst for knowledge, if it actually exists, would be better served by some time in the library. As I recommended to Daniel Smith, there is a very good book on the current state of abiogenesis research by Pierre Luigi Luisi called “The Emergence of Life”. I also recommend a couple of basic chemistry courses BEFORE you tackle that book.

Also, I have added a few links to Wikipedia etc for your edification. These are simple articles with very simple information in them. I suggest them as a beginning point for your investigation, not as "proof". As you claim to be a well read layman, it would behove you familiarise yourself with the very basic elements of the science you claim is in error because it contradicts your religious faith. A quick search of the internet, a medium you clearly have access to, would have disabused you of the fallacious claims you make re: abiogenesis.

Thanks

Louis

ETA: Several edits for formatting etc. More may be needed. Also, RFJE, I have a lot of experience dealing with creationists and I operate a "three strikes" policy. Demonstrate a modicum of intellectual honesty and engagement and I'll happily spend my valuable time explaining things and debating.



Edited by Lou FCD on Feb. 10 2009,13:23

--------------
Bye.

  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,16:10   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,15:47)
A quick search of the internet, a medium you clearly have access to, would have disabused you of the fallacious claims you make re: abiogenesis.

Optimist.

--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,16:19   

Louis, although you are correct that a walk to the pub usually takes one through a park, I'm sure that on several occasions my route home FROM the pub went through Uzbekistan.

How else do I explain waking up in the morning wearing a yak skin hat?

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,16:25   

Speaking of which, so far no sign of the traveler from the "dark side" of the planet - maybe the freshman just needed a Darwinist alley to puke in on his way home...

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5452
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,17:12   

This is just where we are in the Biology 111 classes I'm assisting students with.



I'm feeling a little nostalgic.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,18:04   

RFJE wrote:

Quote
ALso, is there any evidence for a non-oxygen atmosphere?


Tons, actually.  Wiki banded iron formation (BIF).  Keep in mind that BIFs can't form in an atmosphere that contains free oxygen.  Also keep in mind that that is the reason why BIFs aren't forming today.  Both of those are easily observable facts.

My 2c, because my hometown was built to house the miners of a BIF in northeastern Minnesota.  That, and I'm studying to be a geology major.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,18:32   

And people picked on me for breaking the last toy? HAH!
J'ACCUSE!! :angry:

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,18:32   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,16:47)
**LENGTH AND SLIGHT CHEMISTRY WARNING**

Dear RFJE,

As I’ve said already “Hello and Welcome”, I hope you have a productive and enjoyable time here at AtBC. I’m always amused when people come in espousing well refuted canards, erroneous nonsense, and generally being unpleasant. Especially when they then complain that they are somehow persecuted by the less than pleasant replies such behaviour engenders.

I am, however, for the moment going to ignore all that nonsense and focus on the chemical claims you make. I’m also going to ignore the philosophical and biological errors you make re: origin of life/naturalism/evolution. Others can deal with those if they like. What I’m going to do is make a break down of your chemical claims to make sure I have them correct:

   
Quote
Observable Chemistry Fact #1

Presence of water is a problem: Some amino acids break down in water by the process called hydrolysis. It actually breaks the bonds of the amino acids preventing them from forming the chains that build proteins. Stanley Miller, who attempted to create life in a test tube in the early 1950's, knew this, and isolated the products in order to avoid this destructive reaction.


a) Amino acids do not simply “break down” in aqueous solution at any appreciable rate at room temperature (and in the absence of other reagents), nor indeed do dipeptides or polypeptides. You can in fact buy aqueous solutions of most amino acids. The hydrolysis of the amide bond is comparatively difficult to achieve, normally requiring more forcing conditions (strong acid or base, or powerful nucleophiles etc). I think what you are trying to get at is that formation of the peptide/amide bond, which since it is a condensation reaction (i.e. the formation of an amide results in the elimination of a small molecule like water), is hindered by the presence of water. Below I have drawn a simple amino acid and a simple dipeptide (no solution structure is implied) to illustrate the difference for you.



Unfortunately, you are clearly unaware of very basic methods in chemical synthesis. Even though these are not claimed to be the precise routes taken during abiogenesis, they clearly demonstrate that water is not necessarily a hurdle to amide synthesis. Take for example the Schotten
-Baumann conditions for peptide synthesis. This is where a biphasic mixture of solvents, one of which is water and the other a water immiscible organic solvent, are used. The simplistic treatment of the various methods of peptide synthesis as equilibrium processes, and hence trivially subject to Le Chatelier's principle, misses many of the other thermodynamic and kinetic factors and is, in this case at least, erroneous.

Solid phase methods of peptide synthesis or use of activating agents like various carbodiimides etc can also be performed in the presence of water. Water isn’t the problem you think it is. Not only that, aqueous phase syntheses of simple poly/dipeptides are not the only methods proposed for the origins of these sorts of molecules.

b) The Miller-Urey experiment included water as part of the design. The last bit of your claim is mistaken.

   
Quote
Observable Chemistry Fact #2

Presence of Oxygen: Stanley Miller purposely left out oxygen in his experiment. Why? Because he knew that oxygen would be corrosive and tend to destroy the organic compounds for life.

Some scientists have suggested that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain oxygen, but then the atmosphere would have had no ozone layer to sheild the compounds from the ultraviolet rays of the sun---a catch 22 for evolutionists. ALso, is there any evidence for a non-oxygen atmosphere?


a) Oxygen was purposely left out if the Miller-Urey because the best evidence at the time strongly suggested that the early atmosphere had no oxygen in it. Oxygen is a “pollutant” produced by organisms. What Miller and Urey were trying to do was see if simple molecules like amino acids etc could be produced by conditions similar to those proposed on the early earth. Many other experiments of this type have been performed, testing various hypothetical early earth scenarios.

b) Lack of stratospheric ozone is not a problem because UV radiation is not only destructive. It is also positively useful. Many “complex” molecules exist in space (in conditions of vastly greater UV radiation), not only that but UV can promote certain reactions. For example the formose reaction is positively aided by UV radiation.

c) Evidence for the early atmosphere being free of oxygen is found in the composition of rocks dated back to the Siderian period of the Precambrian.

     
Quote
ANOTHER SIGNIFIGANT PROBLEM

Amino acids in living things

1. There are 2000 types amino acids, of which are only 20 are found in living things. We're talking mathematics working against it now.


a) There are vastly more than 2000 possible amino acid types, another basic chemical misunderstanding on your part. The fact that 22 proteinogenic amino acids (plus a few non-proteinogenic ones) are commonly found in modern organisms, is not a mathematical problem for evolutionary biology or abiogenesis. This is no more a problem than the fact that my route to the pub commonly involves me walking via the park rather than via Uzbekistan. Firstly, like my route to the pub, many of the amino acids found in modern organisms are relatively simple (i.e. the R group side chain is not 16 Buckminster-fullerenes linked into a Borromean ring system, it’s a methyl or tolyl group etc). If I were to take a pack of a billion cards and deal 22, that specific 22 card hand is no more or less improbable than any other 22 card hand. There may be reasons the 22 proteinogenic amino acids are the ones we find in modern organisms (thermodynamic stability, specific reactivity etc) but these are very complex and dependant on the chemical environment of the time.

     
Quote
2. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM--All amino acids come in left and right handed forms called "enantiomers." Living things have only the left handed amino acids. When Stanley Miller attempted life in a test tube, he produced only a racemic mixture of right and left handed amino acids that is detrimental to life.


a) There are a myriad of perfectly natural ways for homochirality to arise. Not least is autocatalysis (an example, again not specifically related to abiogenesis, but very indicative is my favourite the Soai reaction). Many other ways like crystal templating and chiral transmission etc. Not only that but once homochiral self-replicating systems like those actually proposed for abiogenesis exist then maintenance of homochirality is evolutionarily more favourable.

b) Again, Miller and Urey were not trying to create life in a test tube, they were trying to discover if simple molecules that are the building blocks of life could be produced by the conditions proposed for the early earth at the time. They could, and were. Miller and Urey did what  they were trying to do.

In conclusion, might I suggest that, instead of posting well refuted common misunderstandings of science on message boards, your missionary zeal inspired thirst for knowledge, if it actually exists, would be better served by some time in the library. As I recommended to Daniel Smith, there is a very good book on the current state of abiogenesis research by Pierre Luigi Luisi called “The Emergence of Life”. I also recommend a couple of basic chemistry courses BEFORE you tackle that book.

Also, I have added a few links to Wikipedia etc for your edification. These are simple articles with very simple information in them. I suggest them as a beginning point for your investigation, not as "proof". As you claim to be a well read layman, it would behove you familiarise yourself with the very basic elements of the science you claim is in error because it contradicts your religious faith. A quick search of the internet, a medium you clearly have access to, would have disabused you of the fallacious claims you make re: abiogenesis.

Thanks

Louis

ETA: Several edits for formatting etc. More may be needed. Also, RFJE, I have a lot of experience dealing with creationists and I operate a "three strikes" policy. Demonstrate a modicum of intellectual honesty and engagement and I'll happily spend my valuable time explaining things and debating.

Egads. Just names and diversions by one means or another. You think you can fool us with such wordwinkery?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,18:36   

" Pierre Luigi Luisi " is obviously some kind of made-up name. "Loogie Lucy" indeed.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,21:41   

Thanks, you made me feel so welcome, guys and girls.  Should I put the official research first or my thoughts first.
How about the official research.  This is so fun.  And I thought I was really stupid for a minute.  Love y'all.


To form protein, the amino acids are linked by dehydration synthesis to form peptide bonds.

Dehydration Synthesis
Definition

noun, plural: dehydration syntheses

A chemical reaction that builds up molecules by losing water molecules.

It is a type of condensation reaction in which monomers join together into polymers while losing water molecules. This process is carried out by losing (-OH) from one of the monomers and (H) from another monomer. The two unstable monomers join together, and the (-OH) and (H) combine forming water (H2O).

Condensation
a chemical reaction between two molecules which links them together and expels a molecule of water. For example: the joining of two amino acids by a peptide bond during the formation of a polypeptide.

----"AWAY FROM THE WATERY ENVIRONMENT"
As a polypeptide chain forms, it naturally twists and bends into its native conformation. One of the things that helps determine the native conformation of a protein is the side chains of all the amino acids involved. Remember some amino acid side chains are hydrophobic while others are hydrophilic. In this case, the “likes” attract: all the hydrophobic side chains (here represented by yellow beads) try to “get together” in the center of the molecule, away from the watery environment, while the hydrophilic side chains are attracted to the outside of the molecule, near the watery environment.References:

   * Berkow, Robert, ed. 1999. The Merck Manual. 17th ed. Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Rahway, NJ.
   * Borror, Donald J. 1960. Dictionary of Root Words and Combining Forms. Mayfield Publ. Co.
   * Campbell, Neil A., Lawrence G. Mitchell, Jane B. Reece. 1999. Biology, 5th Ed.   Benjamin/Cummings Publ. Co., Inc. Menlo Park, CA. (plus earlier editions)
   * Campbell, Neil A., Lawrence G. Mitchell, Jane B. Reece. 1999. Biology: Concepts and Connections, 3rd Ed.   Benjamin/Cummings Publ. Co., Inc. Menlo Park, CA. (plus earlier editions)
   * Marchuk, William N. 1992. A Life Science Lexicon. Wm. C. Brown Publishers, Dubuque, IA.

-----LEFT HANDED AMINO ACIDS EXCLUSIVELY PRODUCED IN ORGANISMS
Only L  amino  acids are constituents of proteins. For almost all amino  acids , the L isomer has S (rather than R) absolute configuration (Figure 3.5). Although considerable effort has gone into understanding why amino  acids in proteins have this absolute configuration, no satisfactory explanation has been arrived at. It seems plausible that the selection of L over d was arbitrary but, once made, was fixed early in evolutionary history.
* W.H. Freeman and Co.

Figure 3.5.  Only L Amino Acids Are Found in Proteins. Almost all L amino acids have an S absolute configuration (from the Latin sinister meaning “left”). The counterclockwise direction of the arrow from highest- to lowest-priority substituents indicates that the chiral center is of the S configuration.


I believe that this will confirm two of the points I made.  In this research I quote, "...all the hydrophobic side chains...try to 'get together' in the center of the molecule, away from the watery environment...."

This is in a cell that has DNA, not in a primordial soup.  Just one dissolving peptide bond ruins the protein, or severely hinders it from functioning correctly.  And how many proteins do we need for life?  Nobody can tell, but its going to take more than a few, and of course in the right sequence.  How did this happen randomly with no DNA to guide it?  And where did DNA get the information?

The other point is left handed amino acids--only produced in organisms.  Miller's random (with intelligent help) experiment produced left handed and mirror imaged AA which can not produce organic protein.[I]

Do I get an A for effort guys?

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,21:50   

No, you get a D for being illiterate.

Sorry, but I already spent 10 years in college.

Educate yourself, idiot.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,21:56   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 09 2009,22:41)
Thanks, you made me feel so welcome, guys and girls.  Should I put the official research first or my thoughts first...

Do I get an A for effort guys?

Aw, he's sorta a cute little feller, ain't he?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,22:00   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 09 2009,21:41)
To form protein, the amino acids are linked by dehydration synthesis to form peptide bonds.
---snip---

lots of sciency-sounding blabbering deleted
---unsnip---

Do I get an A for effort guys?

I am always amazed at how an IDiot can take a tiny nano-bit of information, combine it with a preconceived conclusion, and generate vast amounts of tard.

My hat is off to you, sir. You have taken "fractally wrong" to a new dimension.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,00:59   

Y'know, if I was interested in learning, thought that racemic mixtures was lethal to abiogenesis, and someone mentioned "homochirality", I'd like to think I'd show some Christian humility and take the time to actually find out what "homochirality" was, and if I didn't understand something, ask questions. But then I'm a hardcore propagandist, not an earnest truth-seeker like RFJE.

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,05:01   

My purpose is not to be proud. You people lynched me.  I was only showing you that the research is there for all to see, AND there are credentialed people in science that do not share your worldview or theory.  

I don't have any doubt that there are people on this thread far more credentialed than me--far more educated in science.  But I am not illiterate, and I can write, think and communicate.  

My points are elementary.  A second grader is quite qualified to answer the equation 2+2=4.  I did not come here claiming to have solved the secrets of blackholes. It is not required that I have a PHD in biochemistry to see the problems your theory has.  It only takes common sense to see some impasses.  

You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice.  Knowledge puffs up, but godly love edifies.  Since I have been on this site I have seen nothing but arrogance and elitism.  A vaunting of self and knowledge. Knowledge and wisdom are not the same.  I think some of you are so full of knowledge you have no room for wisdom.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,05:21   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,03:41)
Thanks, you made me feel so welcome, guys and girls.  Should I put the official research first or my thoughts first.
How about the official research.  This is so fun.  And I thought I was really stupid for a minute.  Love y'all.


To form protein, the amino acids are linked by dehydration synthesis to form peptide bonds.

Dehydration Synthesis
Definition

noun, plural: dehydration syntheses

A chemical reaction that builds up molecules by losing water molecules.

It is a type of condensation reaction in which monomers join together into polymers while losing water molecules. This process is carried out by losing (-OH) from one of the monomers and (H) from another monomer. The two unstable monomers join together, and the (-OH) and (H) combine forming water (H2O).

Condensation
a chemical reaction between two molecules which links them together and expels a molecule of water. For example: the joining of two amino acids by a peptide bond during the formation of a polypeptide.

----"AWAY FROM THE WATERY ENVIRONMENT"
As a polypeptide chain forms, it naturally twists and bends into its native conformation. One of the things that helps determine the native conformation of a protein is the side chains of all the amino acids involved. Remember some amino acid side chains are hydrophobic while others are hydrophilic. In this case, the “likes” attract: all the hydrophobic side chains (here represented by yellow beads) try to “get together” in the center of the molecule, away from the watery environment, while the hydrophilic side chains are attracted to the outside of the molecule, near the watery environment.References:

   * Berkow, Robert, ed. 1999. The Merck Manual. 17th ed. Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Rahway, NJ.
   * Borror, Donald J. 1960. Dictionary of Root Words and Combining Forms. Mayfield Publ. Co.
   * Campbell, Neil A., Lawrence G. Mitchell, Jane B. Reece. 1999. Biology, 5th Ed.   Benjamin/Cummings Publ. Co., Inc. Menlo Park, CA. (plus earlier editions)
   * Campbell, Neil A., Lawrence G. Mitchell, Jane B. Reece. 1999. Biology: Concepts and Connections, 3rd Ed.   Benjamin/Cummings Publ. Co., Inc. Menlo Park, CA. (plus earlier editions)
   * Marchuk, William N. 1992. A Life Science Lexicon. Wm. C. Brown Publishers, Dubuque, IA.

-----LEFT HANDED AMINO ACIDS EXCLUSIVELY PRODUCED IN ORGANISMS
Only L  amino  acids are constituents of proteins. For almost all amino  acids , the L isomer has S (rather than R) absolute configuration (Figure 3.5). Although considerable effort has gone into understanding why amino  acids in proteins have this absolute configuration, no satisfactory explanation has been arrived at. It seems plausible that the selection of L over d was arbitrary but, once made, was fixed early in evolutionary history.
* W.H. Freeman and Co.

Figure 3.5.  Only L Amino Acids Are Found in Proteins. Almost all L amino acids have an S absolute configuration (from the Latin sinister meaning “left”). The counterclockwise direction of the arrow from highest- to lowest-priority substituents indicates that the chiral center is of the S configuration.


I believe that this will confirm two of the points I made.  In this research I quote, "...all the hydrophobic side chains...try to 'get together' in the center of the molecule, away from the watery environment...."

This is in a cell that has DNA, not in a primordial soup.  Just one dissolving peptide bond ruins the protein, or severely hinders it from functioning correctly.  And how many proteins do we need for life?  Nobody can tell, but its going to take more than a few, and of course in the right sequence.  How did this happen randomly with no DNA to guide it?  And where did DNA get the information?

The other point is left handed amino acids--only produced in organisms.  Miller's random (with intelligent help) experiment produced left handed and mirror imaged AA which can not produce organic protein.[I]

Do I get an A for effort guys?

RFJE,

Oh dear. I spy quote mines and goalpost shifts. That'll be strike one.

1) Even though formation of the amide/peptide bond is a condensation reaction, as shown above, it doesn't necessarily have to operate in the absence of water (see comment re equilibrium processes). Repeating your original claim when it's been shown to be wrong doesn't reinforce it, especially when all you do is repeat it with copy and pastes you obviously don't understand.

Let's look at a basic chemical mechanism for formation of an amide/peptide bond under the Schotten-Baumann conditions I mention above:



Look at step 2 where the chloride ion is eliminated to reform the carbon oxygen double bond. The side product formed at this stage is NaCl which is insoluble in ether. The reaction requires water at this stage to solvate the side product. Not only that but the base, NaOH, is also insoluble in ether, for the reaction to work some water has to be present. Solvolysis of the NaOH requires water (in this instance). So no RFJE, your claims that a) amino acids break down in water and b) that the peptide/amide bind cannot form in the presence of water are false.

2) The formation of long chain polypeptides and protein folding are a very different case from forming simple amino acids (see Strecker synthesis for example) or simple di/polypeptides i.e. the amide/peptide bond. Any polymer forming in any solution adopts a conformation of some description. As the comment you quote (without attribution I note) mentions the conformation of the polypeptide forming depends on the hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity of the polymer forming. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not polypeptides can form in aqueous environments (they can and do) but what conformation they adopt in what environment, i.e. their tertiary (and perhaps quaternary) structure.

This was your original claim:

Quote
Presence of water is a problem: Some amino acids break down in water by the process called hydrolysis.  It actually breaks the bonds of the amino acids preventing them from forming  the chains that build proteins.


Since amino acids demonstrably do not break down (at an appreciable rate at RTP, modest pH etc) in water (in fact they form zwitterions which are horribly stable and a pain in the arse for the synthetic chemist on occasion, you have to pH buffer aqueous solutions of amino acids to get them to behave), and since the presence of water is demonstrably not a problem for the formation of the amide bonds, in fact in many amide forming conditions it's essential, the first part of your claim is false. Not only that, as the article you misquote above notes, water does not inhibit the formation of large polypeptides, the solvation/environment of the forming polypeptide influences the conformation of the polypeptide. So again, your second, goalpost shifted claim based on a quote mine, and your original misunderstood claim are false, based as they are on your lack of understanding of chemistry.

3) No one is proposing that complex proteins got together, in the absence of DNA, right at the start of the origin of life. There are a variety of proposed scenarios, all of which require that you understand chemistry sufficiently to appreciate how an amide bond forms! Again, it would behove you to inform yourself BEFORE you spout off about topics you obviously don't understand. For example, in one scenario, self-replication is all that is required. All of this is covered in the book I recommended.

4) AGAIN, there are a variety of possible, perfectly natural mechanisms for the origins of homochirality. Personally (for a variety of technical reasons I'm not going to go into) I would advocate that on earth autocatalytic processes not unlike the Soai reaction in their kinetics would be the most likely candidate. If only because the process amplifies very slight deviations from racemic mixtures to produce almost perfectly enantiopure material. If you're interested check out the work of Prof Donna Blackmond at Imperial College, London, on the subject. The Wikipedia article I provided for you gives a few basic ideas about the origins of homochirality, please read it. So, again, the fact that there are perfectly natural mechanisms for the origin homochirality demonstrate that your claim that "homochirality is a problem for evolutionists" is false. The fact that the Miller-Urey experiment did not magically poof life into existence in a test tube is not a problem, it wasn't meant to. It's also not the only experiment that is relevant to abiogenesis, which of course you'd know if you bothered to minimally educate yourself on a subject before bloviating about it. So no, nothing you quoted confirms your claim which was:

Quote
2. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM--All amino acids come in left and right handed forms called "enantiomers."   Living things have only the left handed amino acids.  When Stanley Miller attempted life in a test tube, he produced only a racemic mixture of right and left handed amino acids that is detrimental to life.

So intelligent life tried to set up a random mixture of supposed ingredients and could not do it.  It proved that some random amino acids could be produced.


Your misunderstanding of the Miller-Urey experiment, and the field of study in general, is not evidence. Sorry.

5) The Miller-Urey experiment was, again, meant to demonstrate that one could produce amino acids from conditions like those proposed for the early earth. Regardless of the specific stereochemistry of the amino acids produced, it was a resounding success in that it accomplished what it set out to do. See above.

6) Where did DNA get its information? The sequence of bases in the primary structure of DNA constitutes information (in the technical sense). You're trying to put the cart before the horse.

7) Ahhh trying to have it both ways I see. Because Miller and Urey were intelligent and set up their experiments, they imparted some magical property "intelligence" to the experiment, therefore intelligence is required to make these things. You are assuming what you are trying to prove, literally begging the question, a logical fallacy. For starters, even though it is controversial, the simplest amino acid (glycine) has been (tentatively) observed in space, i.e. it has formed in the absence of "intelligent input". Even if that were not the case, your claim is still logically fallacious. Not only that but it demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of the nature of the experiment (or indeed any experiment). Would you say the same thing if the Miller-Urey experiment had failed to produce any amino acids at all? No, you wouldn't, which neatly demonstrates the intellectually dishonest and bad faith mode of argumentation you employ.

8) "One dissolving peptide bond ruins the protein", since no one is suggesting that complex, modern proteins are required for the vastly simpler origins of life and since the peptide bond is actually highly stable, this complaint isn't even relevant.

9) People CAN tell how many proteins (or indeed how many "anything") are needed for "life", minimal "living" systems are currently the objects of extensive research. Your complaint relies on a) ignorance of current research and b) and equivocation on what constitutes "life".

10) A for effort? No. You get an F for failing to minimally educate yourself about a topic before bloviating erroneously about it. My sympathy for you is running out.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,05:22   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 10 2009,00:32)
[SNIP ME]
Egads. Just names and diversions by one means or another. You think you can fool us with such wordwinkery?

No. We all really know chemistry is a conspiracy to keep you from Jebus. Shhh don't tell anyone.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Cedric Katesby



Posts: 55
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,06:07   

Yay. New toy. New toy.
:)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,06:09   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,11:01)
My purpose is not to be proud. You people lynched me.  I was only showing you that the research is there for all to see, AND there are credentialed people in science that do not share your worldview or theory.  

I don't have any doubt that there are people on this thread far more credentialed than me--far more educated in science.  But I am not illiterate, and I can write, think and communicate.  

My points are elementary.  A second grader is quite qualified to answer the equation 2+2=4.  I did not come here claiming to have solved the secrets of blackholes. It is not required that I have a PHD in biochemistry to see the problems your theory has.  It only takes common sense to see some impasses.  

You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice.  Knowledge puffs up, but godly love edifies.  Since I have been on this site I have seen nothing but arrogance and elitism.  A vaunting of self and knowledge. Knowledge and wisdom are not the same.  I think some of you are so full of knowledge you have no room for wisdom.

RFJE,

Since this has to be one of the more odious posts I've encountered from anyone, I'm counting this as strike two.

1) Lynched you? LYNCHED you? Hardly. You came in making demonstrably erroneous claims in an incredibly arrogant manner (more on this later). Do you seriously expect to be treated politely by everyone you encounter when you do this?

2) "Credentialed" people exist who don't share my "worldview" (whatever that is) or "theory" (which one?). No shit, Sherlock. There is no one, NO ONE, on this board who is unaware of this fact. The trading of authorities is not anything anyone is interested in. The evidence is what matters, not what number of PhDs you might have on your "team" (which to be blunt, if we were going to pull the authority card, which we won't, we'd win by miles).

3) So what if people are more educated than you? Your claims stand or fall on the evidence that supports them, not whether or not someone is more educated than you. It behoves you to inform yourself about the evidence supporting the claims you make. When the evidence does not support them, or refutes them (as is the case here) then you are beholden to withdraw your claims as false. That is the honest and humble thing to do.

4) The "problems" you claim exist for our "theory" (whatever your caricature of it might be) are not problems at all (as demonstrated). They are based on your lack of relevant scientific knowledge and your misunderstandings of what evolutionary biology and abiogenesis constitute. An honest and humble person takes appropriate correction when needed, and bothers to minimally educate themselves on a topic before claiming that problems with as specific piece of science exist.

5)  Elitism. No one has claimed, or is claiming, that an understanding of the relevant science is beyond you. All anyone has claimed, with a great deal of justification, is that your claims are derived from your demonstrable ignorance and lack of understanding of the relevant topics. This is not beyond your ability to correct. This is not elitist, it is a simple fact. In fact I have given you links to basic material that is understandable by an educated layman, and doesn't require a huge quantity of specialist knowledge. I am encouraging you to learn about that which you make claims about. This is the opposite of elitism, it is the very epitome of inclusiveness. You can learn about the relevant science and there are people willing to help. The fact that the relevant science requires that you put in some effort to learn it and understand it is not elitism.

6) Arrogance. Common sense is all that is required to overturn the work of hundreds of thousands of scientists over decades if not centuries? All of these people, experts in their relevant fields, are wrong based on the say so of your "common sense"? And you accuse us of arrogance? No evidence required, no education in the relevant issues or science, no understanding (note I do not say "qualification", because it isn't required)? And you're an expert in humility? Crikey RFJE, I'd love to see how arrogant a non-expert in humility was!

7) " Knowledge and wisdom are not the same.  I think some of you are so full of knowledge you have no room for wisdom." Translation: I've made claims based on ignorance of science and I was relying on the people I made the claims to to be similarly ignorant. They aren't, therefore it must be their fault my claims are wrong.

Please start acting in good faith, and with a modicum of intellectual honesty and effort.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,06:09   

Quote (Cedric Katesby @ Feb. 10 2009,12:07)
Yay. New toy. New toy.
:)

Not for long I suspect.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,06:17   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,05:01)
My purpose is not to be proud.

No, your purpose is to reinforce your preconceived conclusion.
Quote
You people lynched me.

No, as far as I can tell, you are handling that job quite well on your own.  
Quote
I was only showing you that the research is there for all to see, AND there are credentialed people in science that do not share your worldview or theory.  

We are far more familiar with the research than you are, and the fact that there are dissenters on just about every topic in science does not mean that the consensus is wrong.
Quote
I don't have any doubt that there are people on this thread far more credentialed than me--far more educated in science.  

Then why don't you listen to them, rather than assume that your conclusion is correct even after being shown the errors in your assumptions and your thinking?
Quote
But I am not illiterate, and I can write, think and communicate.

Those are minimal requirements for discussion here. Why do you even mention them?  
Quote
My points are elementary.  A second grader is quite qualified to answer the equation 2+2=4.  I did not come here claiming to have solved the secrets of blackholes. It is not required that I have a PHD in biochemistry to see the problems your theory has.  It only takes common sense to see some impasses.

No, you came here blustering that you know more about chemistry than the experts, and proceeded to demonstrate that you really have nothing new to offer. And yes, there are some "impasses", or unresolved questions, in just about every science. What is the point of that strawman? 
Quote
You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice.

Clearly your study of humility has left you less than humble.
Quote
Knowledge puffs up, but godly love edifies.  

That's backward in your case then, because your lack of knowledge has only puffed you up, and your godly love has not edified any of us here.
Quote
Since I have been on this site I have seen nothing but arrogance and elitism.  A vaunting of self and knowledge. Knowledge and wisdom are not the same.  I think some of you are so full of knowledge you have no room for wisdom.

And you are so full of ignorance that you have no room for humility.

bye

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,06:33   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,06:01)
My purpose is not to be proud. You people lynched me.  I was only showing you that the research is there for all to see, AND there are credentialed people in science that do not share your worldview or theory.  

I don't have any doubt that there are people on this thread far more credentialed than me--far more educated in science.  But I am not illiterate, and I can write, think and communicate.  

My points are elementary.  A second grader is quite qualified to answer the equation 2+2=4.  I did not come here claiming to have solved the secrets of blackholes. It is not required that I have a PHD in biochemistry to see the problems your theory has.  It only takes common sense to see some impasses.  

You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice.  Knowledge puffs up, but godly love edifies.  Since I have been on this site I have seen nothing but arrogance and elitism.  A vaunting of self and knowledge. Knowledge and wisdom are not the same.  I think some of you are so full of knowledge you have no room for wisdom.

Bzzzzt.

Your play of the "humility" and "wisdom" cards is contradicted by the nauseating, presumptive arrogance of your posts. You do in fact possess a second grade education in these matters - worse, really, in that you have immersed yourself in the rotting fish-heads of creationist disinformation - yet from this stance of willful ignorance actually imagine that you are detecting and articulating problems missed, indeed hidden, by an entire community of tens of thousands of working scientists. Puffed up? You're a fucking blowfish.

If this typical of the edification supplied by godly love, please take it elsewhere. Asshole.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,06:37   

Page turn bug so soon?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,07:07   

Oh, don't worry RB, I don't think this one will give up so easily!

I mean, He's got a chemist, and actual chemist (thanks Louis, I learned a lot), to spell it out to him, but still he comes back.

But at least, what he lacks in knowledge, he has made up for so far by engaging the "issue" in a so non-FTK way. Give him those 2 remaining strikes before we can all agree that he is a fully commited IDot.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Spottedwind



Posts: 83
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,07:09   

Great post Louis.  Though I have to say that the stand out part for me was:

 
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,16:47)

Also, I have added a few links to Wikipedia etc for your edification. These are simple articles with very simple information in them. I suggest them as a beginning point for your investigation, not as "proof".


Now, I'm not a big Wikipedia fan, but what I like is that you stress that it is the beginning of learning, not the end.  It's not a matter of 'Here, Wikipedia says this, so it is' but a 'teach thyself' offer; which to me is even better.  I'm pretty sure the offer is lost on RFJE but such is life.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,07:32   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 10 2009,13:07)
Oh, don't worry RB, I don't think this one will give up so easily!

I mean, He's got a chemist, and actual chemist (thanks Louis, I learned a lot), to spell it out to him, but still he comes back.

But at least, what he lacks in knowledge, he has made up for so far by engaging the "issue" in a so non-FTK way. Give him those 2 remaining strikes before we can all agree that he is a fully commited IDot.

But I skipped over the really beautiful detail (one reason the technical post on bonding I want to do for Lou is taking me so long is because I am NOT skipping the detail. I want to do a good job. Sorry Lou).

If the guy is struggling at the differences between amino acid, amide/peptide bond, dipeptide/short chain polypeptide, and long chain polypeptide/protein or primary structure vs tertiary structure then what the hell is the point of discussing real mechanistic detail with him?* Bond strengths, rate constants, quantum mechanics and delocalisation, all of these and more illuminate the topic of abiogenesis wonderfully. It's vastly more detailed and complex than a few words from a numpty like me.

I know I bang on about it, but if anyone takes the time to understand the Soai reaction's kinetics it is truly fascinating. If anyone has read Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter (or any of his other stuff about strange loops etc) then it will be immediately obvious how relevant it is. The detail really is fun, it's not just for chemistry geeks like me.

Louis

*The occasional chemdraw scheme isn't too much of an imposition, but excessive equation editor bores the absolute arse off of me, the effort is only worth it for special cases!

--------------
Bye.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,07:37   

Mayberry RFD,

You are right and I am wrong.

You are not illiterate.  My mistake.  Wrong word.

You are ignorant, however.

Also, I gave you a D out of charity.  Back in the day when I was teaching, if you had turned in on a test what you wrote, I would have failed you.

So, I'm taking back the D and giving you an F.

But, I'm not done yet!

Should you return, please explain the importance of "common sense" in science.  Start with the Observable Fact that the Sun rises in the east, sets in the west and the Earth observably does not move much less rotate at a rate of 1000 miles per hour.  Then, using common sense, describe or prove a heliocentric system of sun and planets, and that the Earth moves and rotates.

Thank you for playing Common Sense 101.

p.s.  There will be a quiz on Monday.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,07:46   

Quote (Spottedwind @ Feb. 10 2009,13:09)
Great post Louis.  Though I have to say that the stand out part for me was:

 
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,16:47)

Also, I have added a few links to Wikipedia etc for your edification. These are simple articles with very simple information in them. I suggest them as a beginning point for your investigation, not as "proof".


Now, I'm not a big Wikipedia fan, but what I like is that you stress that it is the beginning of learning, not the end.  It's not a matter of 'Here, Wikipedia says this, so it is' but a 'teach thyself' offer; which to me is even better.  I'm pretty sure the offer is lost on RFJE but such is life.

The point is lost on the RFJEs/Denials/FTKs/etc of this world.

It's always the thing that annoys me with creationists/denialists of any species: claim humility on their part, claim arrogance on the part of scientists, claim persecution by an elite and then spout off about a topic they clearly know nothing about or make egregious errors and refuse to correct them. It's not like it's restricted to the "foot soldiers" either, the Hams and Dembskis of the creationist world do this too.

I don't go to bible websites and tell them the bible proves Jesus was a llama and then claim persecution when they (quite rightly) excoriate me. In fact I don't go to bible websites at all! They just have to learn that their ignorance is not as good as anyone else's knowledge.

Well, they just have to learn!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,07:53   

Hip Hip Hurray and Huzzah to everyone on this thread - I think it proves the InterTubes do work...

I nominate this entire thread for teh coveted Thread Of The Week  Award , (which I just invented)  and would like it submitted to the Noble and Pullitzer Committees and of course the Smithsonian and British Museums, and for Schrodingers Dog, La Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie.

Congratulations to you all.

added in edit:  And send it to AIG - "Arguments Not To Use Cuz You'll Look Teh Stoopids."

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,08:20   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,07:32)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 10 2009,13:07)
Oh, don't worry RB, I don't think this one will give up so easily!

I mean, He's got a chemist, and actual chemist (thanks Louis, I learned a lot), to spell it out to him, but still he comes back.

But at least, what he lacks in knowledge, he has made up for so far by engaging the "issue" in a so non-FTK way. Give him those 2 remaining strikes before we can all agree that he is a fully commited IDot.

But I skipped over the really beautiful detail (one reason the technical post on bonding I want to do for Lou is taking me so long is because I am NOT skipping the detail. I want to do a good job. Sorry Lou).

If the guy is struggling at the differences between amino acid, amide/peptide bond, dipeptide/short chain polypeptide, and long chain polypeptide/protein or primary structure vs tertiary structure then what the hell is the point of discussing real mechanistic detail with him?* Bond strengths, rate constants, quantum mechanics and delocalisation, all of these and more illuminate the topic of abiogenesis wonderfully. It's vastly more detailed and complex than a few words from a numpty like me.

I know I bang on about it, but if anyone takes the time to understand the Soai reaction's kinetics it is truly fascinating. If anyone has read Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter (or any of his other stuff about strange loops etc) then it will be immediately obvious how relevant it is. The detail really is fun, it's not just for chemistry geeks like me.

Louis

*The occasional chemdraw scheme isn't too much of an imposition, but excessive equation editor bores the absolute arse off of me, the effort is only worth it for special cases!

Louis, I trully admire your commitment.

I only wish MY teachers were so good at their job.

RFJE should be gratefull for that. I am but a humble entertainer, going "down" in the Blipey class (Blipey, nothing diminishing there, I was merely pointing out the fact that non-scientists can be quite smart and informed), But even I, so simple and basicaly unbiased, can see where the evidence points, and the way it points is nowhere near what RFJE thinks/says/extrapolates...

Taking out the blindfolds would be a nice start, RFJE...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2324
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,08:33   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 09 2009,19:41)
The other point is left handed amino acids--only produced in organisms.  Miller's random (with intelligent help) experiment produced left handed and mirror imaged AA which can not produce organic protein.[I]

Do I get an A for effort guys?

Before this new one runs away;

Regarding chirality (which creationists like to pontificate about without the slightest idea of what it means), there is actually no problem at all.

L-amino acids are not the only form of AAs used.

Pasteur discovered that most amino acids came in two forms which can be identified by how they refract light. We label theses L- (for levo or left) and D- (for dextro, or right). The interesting thing is that life on Earth uses the L form of amino acids, and hardly ever uses the D- form. A solution of just one form is called "chiral" and a mix of forms about 50/50 is called racimic. The kinds (L or D) are called enantomers.

The nucleic acid bases are also found in L- and D- forms, only in this case life on Earth only uses the D- form.

Creationists like to present this as a profound mystery that is supposed to "prove" that they are correct. I want to mention a neat instance where both left and right amino acids are used in a living thing. It seems at first to be very rare, but it does happen. Next time a creationist claims to be an "expert" and that amino acid chirility "proves" something supernatural, you can gob-smack-em. I have found that even many biologists will bet an "adult beverage" that all proteins are exclusive L- amino acids. The protein is called Gramicidin A and it has 8 L-amino acids, 6 D-amino acids, and one glycine which is an amino acid that is neither L- or D- in its structure. Gramicidin A links to itself and forms a transmenbrane pore. An important feature of these short racemic peptides is that they always form a helix.

Before we go forward another couple of basic chemical facts need to be added to the discussion. First, L- amino acids will randomly convert to D- amino acids over time, and D- forms will convert to L- forms. This is called "racimization" because eventually you will end up with equal amounts of L- and D- amino acids. The rate that this occurs at varies with the amino acid, and its surroundings. The fastest conversion happens to amino acid molecules all by themselves in hot water. Under cold, dry conditions when the amino acids are attached to one another, or better yet, if they are also attached to a mineral, racimization can be very slow. Very, very slow.

This means that if there is even a tiny advantage one way or the other, the favored form will become the dominant form. The advantage comes from a surprising direction: outer space.

Cronin, J. R. & Pizzarello, S., 1999. Amino acid enantomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. Advances in Space Research 23(2): 293-299.

Service, RF, 1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283.

Antonio Chrysostomou, T. M. Gledhill,1 Fransois M‚nard, J. H. Hough, Motohide Tamura and Jeremy Bailey 2000 "Polarimetry of young stellar objects -III. Circular polarimetry of OMC-1" Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Volume 312 Issue 1 Page 103 - February

Michael H. Engel and Bartholomew Nagy, 1982 "Distribution and Enantiomeric Composition of Amino Acids in the Murchison Meteorite", Nature , 296, April 29, , p. 838.

Jeremy Bailey, Antonio Chrysostomou, J. H. Hough, T. M. Gledhill, Alan McCall, Stuart Clark, Fran‡ois M‚nard, and Motohide Tamura 1998 Circular Polarization in Star- Formation Regions: Implications for Biomolecular Homochirality Science 1998 July 31; 281: 672-674. (in Reports)

Chyba, Christopher F. 1997 Origins of life: A left-handed Solar System? Nature 389, 234- 235 (18 Sep 1997)

Engel, M. H., S. A. Macko 1997 Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non- racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite. Nature 389, 265 - 268 (18 Sep) Letters to Nature

That should do for that. The next question is can the advantage of L- amino acids be conserved in the formation of more complex molecules called "peptides?" Yep.

Schmidt, J. G., Nielsen, P. E. & Orgel, L. E. 1997 Enantiomeric cross- inhibition in the synthesis of oligonucleotides on a nonchiral template. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 119, 1494-1495

Saghatelion A, Yokobayashi Y, Soltani K, Ghadiri MR, 2001"A chiroselective peptide replicator", Nature 409: 797-51, Feb

Singleton, D A,& Vo, L K, 2002 "Enantioselective Synthsis without Discrete Optically Active Additives" J. Am. Chem. Soc. 124, 10010-10011

Yao Shao, Ghosh I, Zutshi R, Chmielewski J. 1998 Selective amplification by auto- and cross-catalysis in a replicating peptide system. Nature. Dec 3;396(6710):447-50.

And there seems to be other L- selection advantages as well. For example:

Hazen, R.M., T.R. Filley, and G.A. Goodfriend. 2001. Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: Implications for biochemical homochirality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(May 8):5487.

So chirility doesn't seem to be a big problem. This is far different from the way creationists present this. They cite a few out of date reports and then falsely claim that chiral life is impossible by natural means.

There are larger arguments for a racemic origin of life.

Edward Trifonov (2004) confirmed two ideas, that the earliest amino acids were those easiest to form abiotically, that codons and aa's organized contemporaneously to form short ogliomers (what he didn't cite was the notion that oligomers can form spontaneously, are "selected" merely by being stable, and that RNAs (or Lacanzo and Miller's PNAs) imprint and replicate "successful" short peptides.) Trifonov wrote, "The amino-acid chronology itself is a quintessence of natural simplicity and opportunism: use first those amino acids that are available. When done with all codons, take from those amino acids that have too many."

The fact is that there are a growing list of short proteins with D- aa's, (most of the ones I know of are bacterial membrane components but there are also examples from yeasts to humans). Add to this, most bacteria have evolved enzymes that convert L-aa's to D-aa's for the same Miller/prebiotic amino acids. Again even we humans have enzymes to use D-aa's.

ETA: I forgot to include two citations:

Lazcano, Antonio, Stanley L. Miller
1996 “The Origin and Early Evolution of Life: Prebiotic Chemistry, the Pre-RNA World, and Time” Cell vol 85:793-798


Trifonov, Edward N.
2004 "The Triplet Code From First Principles" Journal of Biomolecular Structure & Dynamics, ISSN 0739-1102 Volume 22, Issue Number 1, (2004)




Edited by Lou FCD on Feb. 10 2009,13:23

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,08:35   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,05:01)
My purpose is not to be proud. You people lynched me.

The reaction you got is the normal reaction to be expected when a complete know-nothing comes blasting in, convinced that they have all the answers and that the scientists are completely ignorant on the subject they have spent decades studying.
Quote
 I was only showing you that the research is there for all to see, AND there are credentialed people in science that do not share your worldview or theory.

Do you seriously think that we are not aware of these people that those on the creation/ID side believe to be credentialed and therefore correct? And you accuse us of arrogance!
Quote

My points are elementary.

So why did you assume that no-one has considered them?
Quote
It is not required that I have a PHD in biochemistry to see the problems your theory has.

Interestingly, even people with PhDs have failed to find problems in the theory of evolution. In fact, the better a person is informed on the topic, the less likely they are to have problems with it.
Quote
You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice.

I recall you've said you've been a missionary. In my opinion, nobody is as arrogant as a missionary. Imagine, that of the thousands of religions around, you have found the one true one and are sufficiently convinced that you have the urge to convert all others. What could possibly be more arrogant?

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,08:52   

His purpose was to be a martyr, which he has accomplished.

You have to have a little bitty bit of experience with the "Darwinists," just like the totally canned "missionary experience." It's street cred - then you can go back to tell your grandchildren all about how you battled the forces of evil.

(Yes, I saw the missionary experience, not in Africa, in Jamaica. What a waste, compared to what my organization was doing - but we actually had to consult with the Jamaican people we were working with as equals! The missionaries sat in a circle and talked about God and hauled rocks around; we connected a computer network so that the kids at York Castle High could teleconference with the kids at St. Paul Academy. )

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,08:53   

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 10 2009,13:53)
Hip Hip Hurray and Huzzah to everyone on this thread - I think it proves the InterTubes do work...

I nominate this entire thread for teh coveted Thread Of The Week  Award , (which I just invented)  and would like it submitted to the Noble and Pullitzer Committees and of course the Smithsonian and British Museums, and for Schrodingers Dog, La Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie.

Congratulations to you all.

added in edit:  And send it to AIG - "Arguments Not To Use Cuz You'll Look Teh Stoopids."

Thread of the week? Does it last for a whole hour?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,09:29   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,08:53)
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 10 2009,13:53)
Hip Hip Hurray and Huzzah to everyone on this thread - I think it proves the InterTubes do work...

I nominate this entire thread for teh coveted Thread Of The Week  Award , (which I just invented)  and would like it submitted to the Noble and Pullitzer Committees and of course the Smithsonian and British Museums, and for Schrodingers Dog, La Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie.

Congratulations to you all.

added in edit:  And send it to AIG - "Arguments Not To Use Cuz You'll Look Teh Stoopids."

Thread of the week? Does it last for a whole hour?

Louis

No - For the entire year, IMO.  This thread will be hard to top.
As a matter of fact, the next time I run into my former state Senator, I will ask him to put this in ALL the text books as an example of How To Do It Right.  I think Barack will agree.

You have obviously confused the Post Of The Week with the Much More Prestigious Thread Of The Week...

edited for sp

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,09:46   

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 10 2009,15:29)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,08:53)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 10 2009,13:53)
Hip Hip Hurray and Huzzah to everyone on this thread - I think it proves the InterTubes do work...

I nominate this entire thread for teh coveted Thread Of The Week  Award , (which I just invented)  and would like it submitted to the Noble and Pullitzer Committees and of course the Smithsonian and British Museums, and for Schrodingers Dog, La Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie.

Congratulations to you all.

added in edit:  And send it to AIG - "Arguments Not To Use Cuz You'll Look Teh Stoopids."

Thread of the week? Does it last for a whole hour?

Louis

No - For the entire year, IMO.  This thread will be hard to top.
As a matter of fact, the next time I run into my former state Senator, I will ask him to put this in ALL the text books as an example of How To Do It Right.  I think Barack will agree.

You have obviously confused the Post Of The Week with the Much More Prestigious Thread Of The Week...

edited for sp

But surely in AtBC-world more prestige = less time. So the prestigious POTW can last for hours, maybe even days, and as TOTW is even more prestigious it should possibly last for minutes. Just think POTY could last for picoseconds...

;-)

Louis

P.S. I think the POTUS has more important issues on his hands than POTW. Like being funky for one (sorry, I've been reading Sinfest again).

--------------
Bye.

  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,10:30   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 10 2009,08:35)
     
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,05:01)
You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice.

I recall you've said you've been a missionary. In my opinion, nobody is as arrogant as a missionary. Imagine, that of the thousands of religions around, you have found the one true one and are sufficiently convinced that you have the urge to convert all others. What could possibly be more arrogant?

Ah, but you misconstrue his point.  His area of expertise is not the practice of humility, it's the regurgitation of aphorisms about humility.
   
Quote
Knowledge puffs up, but godly love edifies.

See?

--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5452
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,12:26   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,16:47)
**LENGTH AND SLIGHT CHEMISTRY WARNING**

Dear RFJE,

As I’ve said already “Hello and Welcome”, I hope you have a productive and enjoyable time here at AtBC. I’m always amused when people come in espousing well refuted canards, erroneous nonsense, and generally being unpleasant. Especially when they then complain that they are somehow persecuted by the less than pleasant replies such behaviour engenders.

I am, however, for the moment going to ignore all that nonsense and focus on the chemical claims you make. I’m also going to ignore the philosophical and biological errors you make re: origin of life/naturalism/evolution. Others can deal with those if they like. What I’m going to do is make a break down of your chemical claims to make sure I have them correct:

     
Quote
Observable Chemistry Fact #1

Presence of water is a problem: Some amino acids break down in water by the process called hydrolysis. It actually breaks the bonds of the amino acids preventing them from forming the chains that build proteins. Stanley Miller, who attempted to create life in a test tube in the early 1950's, knew this, and isolated the products in order to avoid this destructive reaction.


a) Amino acids do not simply “break down” in aqueous solution at any appreciable rate at room temperature (and in the absence of other reagents), nor indeed do dipeptides or polypeptides. You can in fact buy aqueous solutions of most amino acids. The hydrolysis of the amide bond is comparatively difficult to achieve, normally requiring more forcing conditions (strong acid or base, or powerful nucleophiles etc). I think what you are trying to get at is that formation of the peptide/amide bond, which since it is a condensation reaction (i.e. the formation of an amide results in the elimination of a small molecule like water), is hindered by the presence of water. Below I have drawn a simple amino acid and a simple dipeptide (no solution structure is implied) to illustrate the difference for you.



Unfortunately, you are clearly unaware of very basic methods in chemical synthesis. Even though these are not claimed to be the precise routes taken during abiogenesis, they clearly demonstrate that water is not necessarily a hurdle to amide synthesis. Take for example the Schotten
-Baumann conditions for peptide synthesis. This is where a biphasic mixture of solvents, one of which is water and the other a water immiscible organic solvent, are used. The simplistic treatment of the various methods of peptide synthesis as equilibrium processes, and hence trivially subject to Le Chatelier's principle, misses many of the other thermodynamic and kinetic factors and is, in this case at least, erroneous.

Solid phase methods of peptide synthesis or use of activating agents like various carbodiimides etc can also be performed in the presence of water. Water isn’t the problem you think it is. Not only that, aqueous phase syntheses of simple poly/dipeptides are not the only methods proposed for the origins of these sorts of molecules.

b) The Miller-Urey experiment included water as part of the design. The last bit of your claim is mistaken.

     
Quote
Observable Chemistry Fact #2

Presence of Oxygen: Stanley Miller purposely left out oxygen in his experiment. Why? Because he knew that oxygen would be corrosive and tend to destroy the organic compounds for life.

Some scientists have suggested that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain oxygen, but then the atmosphere would have had no ozone layer to sheild the compounds from the ultraviolet rays of the sun---a catch 22 for evolutionists. ALso, is there any evidence for a non-oxygen atmosphere?


a) Oxygen was purposely left out if the Miller-Urey because the best evidence at the time strongly suggested that the early atmosphere had no oxygen in it. Oxygen is a “pollutant” produced by organisms. What Miller and Urey were trying to do was see if simple molecules like amino acids etc could be produced by conditions similar to those proposed on the early earth. Many other experiments of this type have been performed, testing various hypothetical early earth scenarios.

b) Lack of stratospheric ozone is not a problem because UV radiation is not only destructive. It is also positively useful. Many “complex” molecules exist in space (in conditions of vastly greater UV radiation), not only that but UV can promote certain reactions. For example the formose reaction is positively aided by UV radiation.

c) Evidence for the early atmosphere being free of oxygen is found in the composition of rocks dated back to the Siderian period of the Precambrian.

     
Quote
ANOTHER SIGNIFIGANT PROBLEM

Amino acids in living things

1. There are 2000 types amino acids, of which are only 20 are found in living things. We're talking mathematics working against it now.


a) There are vastly more than 2000 possible amino acid types, another basic chemical misunderstanding on your part. The fact that 22 proteinogenic amino acids (plus a few non-proteinogenic ones) are commonly found in modern organisms, is not a mathematical problem for evolutionary biology or abiogenesis. This is no more a problem than the fact that my route to the pub commonly involves me walking via the park rather than via Uzbekistan. Firstly, like my route to the pub, many of the amino acids found in modern organisms are relatively simple (i.e. the R group side chain is not 16 Buckminster-fullerenes linked into a Borromean ring system, it’s a methyl or tolyl group etc). If I were to take a pack of a billion cards and deal 22, that specific 22 card hand is no more or less improbable than any other 22 card hand. There may be reasons the 22 proteinogenic amino acids are the ones we find in modern organisms (thermodynamic stability, specific reactivity etc) but these are very complex and dependant on the chemical environment of the time.

     
Quote
2. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM--All amino acids come in left and right handed forms called "enantiomers." Living things have only the left handed amino acids. When Stanley Miller attempted life in a test tube, he produced only a racemic mixture of right and left handed amino acids that is detrimental to life.


a) There are a myriad of perfectly natural ways for homochirality to arise. Not least is autocatalysis (an example, again not specifically related to abiogenesis, but very indicative is my favourite the Soai reaction). Many other ways like crystal templating and chiral transmission etc. Not only that but once homochiral self-replicating systems like those actually proposed for abiogenesis exist then maintenance of homochirality is evolutionarily more favourable.

b) Again, Miller and Urey were not trying to create life in a test tube, they were trying to discover if simple molecules that are the building blocks of life could be produced by the conditions proposed for the early earth at the time. They could, and were. Miller and Urey did what  they were trying to do.

In conclusion, might I suggest that, instead of posting well refuted common misunderstandings of science on message boards, your missionary zeal inspired thirst for knowledge, if it actually exists, would be better served by some time in the library. As I recommended to Daniel Smith, there is a very good book on the current state of abiogenesis research by Pierre Luigi Luisi called “The Emergence of Life”. I also recommend a couple of basic chemistry courses BEFORE you tackle that book.

Also, I have added a few links to Wikipedia etc for your edification. These are simple articles with very simple information in them. I suggest them as a beginning point for your investigation, not as "proof". As you claim to be a well read layman, it would behove you familiarise yourself with the very basic elements of the science you claim is in error because it contradicts your religious faith. A quick search of the internet, a medium you clearly have access to, would have disabused you of the fallacious claims you make re: abiogenesis.

Thanks

Louis

ETA: Several edits for formatting etc. More may be needed. Also, RFJE, I have a lot of experience dealing with creationists and I operate a "three strikes" policy. Demonstrate a modicum of intellectual honesty and engagement and I'll happily spend my valuable time explaining things and debating.


 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 10 2009,09:33)
 
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 09 2009,19:41)
The other point is left handed amino acids--only produced in organisms.  Miller's random (with intelligent help) experiment produced left handed and mirror imaged AA which can not produce organic protein.[I]

Do I get an A for effort guys?

Before this new one runs away;

Regarding chirality (which creationists like to pontificate about without the slightest idea of what it means), there is actually no problem at all.

L-amino acids are not the only form of AAs used.

Pasteur discovered that most amino acids came in two forms which can be identified by how they refract light. We label theses L- (for levo or left) and D- (for dextro, or right). The interesting thing is that life on Earth uses the L form of amino acids, and hardly ever uses the D- form. A solution of just one form is called "chiral" and a mix of forms about 50/50 is called racimic. The kinds (L or D) are called enantomers.

The nucleic acid bases are also found in L- and D- forms, only in this case life on Earth only uses the D- form.

Creationists like to present this as a profound mystery that is supposed to "prove" that they are correct. I want to mention a neat instance where both left and right amino acids are used in a living thing. It seems at first to be very rare, but it does happen. Next time a creationist claims to be an "expert" and that amino acid chirility "proves" something supernatural, you can gob-smack-em. I have found that even many biologists will bet an "adult beverage" that all proteins are exclusive L- amino acids. The protein is called Gramicidin A and it has 8 L-amino acids, 6 D-amino acids, and one glycine which is an amino acid that is neither L- or D- in its structure. Gramicidin A links to itself and forms a transmenbrane pore. An important feature of these short racemic peptides is that they always form a helix.

Before we go forward another couple of basic chemical facts need to be added to the discussion. First, L- amino acids will randomly convert to D- amino acids over time, and D- forms will convert to L- forms. This is called "racimization" because eventually you will end up with equal amounts of L- and D- amino acids. The rate that this occurs at varies with the amino acid, and its surroundings. The fastest conversion happens to amino acid molecules all by themselves in hot water. Under cold, dry conditions when the amino acids are attached to one another, or better yet, if they are also attached to a mineral, racimization can be very slow. Very, very slow.

This means that if there is even a tiny advantage one way or the other, the favored form will become the dominant form. The advantage comes from a surprising direction: outer space.

Cronin, J. R. & Pizzarello, S., 1999. Amino acid enantomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. Advances in Space Research 23(2): 293-299.

Service, RF, 1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283.

Antonio Chrysostomou, T. M. Gledhill,1 Fransois M‚nard, J. H. Hough, Motohide Tamura and Jeremy Bailey 2000 "Polarimetry of young stellar objects -III. Circular polarimetry of OMC-1" Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Volume 312 Issue 1 Page 103 - February

Michael H. Engel and Bartholomew Nagy, 1982 "Distribution and Enantiomeric Composition of Amino Acids in the Murchison Meteorite", Nature , 296, April 29, , p. 838.

Jeremy Bailey, Antonio Chrysostomou, J. H. Hough, T. M. Gledhill, Alan McCall, Stuart Clark, Fran‡ois M‚nard, and Motohide Tamura 1998 Circular Polarization in Star- Formation Regions: Implications for Biomolecular Homochirality Science 1998 July 31; 281: 672-674. (in Reports)

Chyba, Christopher F. 1997 Origins of life: A left-handed Solar System? Nature 389, 234- 235 (18 Sep 1997)

Engel, M. H., S. A. Macko 1997 Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non- racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite. Nature 389, 265 - 268 (18 Sep) Letters to Nature

That should do for that. The next question is can the advantage of L- amino acids be conserved in the formation of more complex molecules called "peptides?" Yep.

Schmidt, J. G., Nielsen, P. E. & Orgel, L. E. 1997 Enantiomeric cross- inhibition in the synthesis of oligonucleotides on a nonchiral template. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 119, 1494-1495

Saghatelion A, Yokobayashi Y, Soltani K, Ghadiri MR, 2001"A chiroselective peptide replicator", Nature 409: 797-51, Feb

Singleton, D A,& Vo, L K, 2002 "Enantioselective Synthsis without Discrete Optically Active Additives" J. Am. Chem. Soc. 124, 10010-10011

Yao Shao, Ghosh I, Zutshi R, Chmielewski J. 1998 Selective amplification by auto- and cross-catalysis in a replicating peptide system. Nature. Dec 3;396(6710):447-50.

And there seems to be other L- selection advantages as well. For example:

Hazen, R.M., T.R. Filley, and G.A. Goodfriend. 2001. Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: Implications for biochemical homochirality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(May 8):5487.

So chirility doesn't seem to be a big problem. This is far different from the way creationists present this. They cite a few out of date reports and then falsely claim that chiral life is impossible by natural means.

There are larger arguments for a racemic origin of life.

Edward Trifonov (2004) confirmed two ideas, that the earliest amino acids were those easiest to form abiotically, that codons and aa's organized contemporaneously to form short ogliomers (what he didn't cite was the notion that oligomers can form spontaneously, are "selected" merely by being stable, and that RNAs (or Lacanzo and Miller's PNAs) imprint and replicate "successful" short peptides.) Trifonov wrote, "The amino-acid chronology itself is a quintessence of natural simplicity and opportunism: use first those amino acids that are available. When done with all codons, take from those amino acids that have too many."

The fact is that there are a growing list of short proteins with D- aa's, (most of the ones I know of are bacterial membrane components but there are also examples from yeasts to humans). Add to this, most bacteria have evolved enzymes that convert L-aa's to D-aa's for the same Miller/prebiotic amino acids. Again even we humans have enzymes to use D-aa's.

ETA: I forgot to include two citations:

Lazcano, Antonio, Stanley L. Miller
1996 “The Origin and Early Evolution of Life: Prebiotic Chemistry, the Pre-RNA World, and Time” Cell vol 85:793-798


Trifonov, Edward N.
2004 "The Triplet Code From First Principles" Journal of Biomolecular Structure & Dynamics, ISSN 0739-1102 Volume 22, Issue Number 1, (2004)



I am hereby unilaterally awarding dual PotWs.

Excellent and informative, not to mention just plain cool science.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,12:37   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 10 2009,18:26)
[SNIP]

I am hereby unilaterally awarding dual PotWs.

Excellent and informative, not to mention just plain cool science.

POTW? How long for? I want at least an hour!

;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,13:08   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,06:01)

You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice.

You know someone has true humility when they have to point it out to you.  :D

Louis, I love reading your posts.  You clearly know what you are talking about, and you seem to really enjoy teaching others.  You have the patience of a saint.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,13:25   

Quote (ppb @ Feb. 10 2009,13:08)
 
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,06:01)

You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice.

You know someone has true humility when they have to point it out to you.  :D

Louis, I love reading your posts.  You clearly know what you are talking about, and you seem to really enjoy teaching others.  You have the patience of a saint.

A saint?  Louis?  Well, he could look like this Saint, I guess..




For those that couldn't place it, this is actually Marcelino Ravery.  Or maybe Louis at last weeks staff meeting...
he is British donchaknow, and they do take things a bit more seriously than we do here in the states.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,13:33   

Quote (ppb @ Feb. 10 2009,19:08)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,06:01)

You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice.

You know someone has true humility when they have to point it out to you.  :D

Louis, I love reading your posts.  You clearly know what you are talking about, and you seem to really enjoy teaching others.  You have the patience of a saint.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sorry, I appreciate the compliment but I am a horribly impatient and intolerant person. I've just mentioned your comment to my wife, she is sending over a trained psychologist and counsellor. Taking that level of hallucinogenic drugs is not good for you.

Thanks though.

;)

Louis

ETA: Of my many great qualities I think my humility is probably my best one. ;)

--------------
Bye.

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,13:36   

Quote

b) Lack of stratospheric ozone is not a problem because UV radiation is not only destructive. It is also positively useful. Many “complex” molecules exist in space (in conditions of vastly greater UV radiation), not only that but UV can promote certain reactions. For example the formose reaction is positively aided by UV radiation.


Isn't UV also absorped by water?
I always thought that the shorter the wavelenght, the more water the light can pass through before it's filtered out. I tried to find out how deep that is for UV light and I found this list (German) with absorption coefficents for different wavelenght and the layer thickness* after which the intensity is reduced to 1/1000 of the original:

Lambda(nm)     k(1/m)      x(0,001)(m)
=======================================
200           ca. 7            1
250           ca. 1            7
300           ca. 0,2         35
350           ca. 0,2         35
400           ca. 0,06       110
450           ca. 0,02       350
500           ca. 0,025      280
550           ca. 0,05       140
600           ca. 0,2         35
650           ca. 0,32        22
700           ca. 0,65        11
750           ca. 2,6          2,7
800           ca. 2,0          3,5
1000            37            0,19

So, the shorter the wavelength, the deeper the light can reach seems to be true only for the visible light. According to this list UV light can't reach as deep as e.g. blue light.

Does anyone know whether that is true?
Unfortunately, the author of that list states that he found several vastly different absorption coefficents for UV light in the literature and he would provide only a "best guess".


* This isn't exactly a topic I discuss on a daily basis, so I'm not sure whether I use the correct terms. I hope it's still clear what I mean....

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,13:36   

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 10 2009,19:25)
Quote (ppb @ Feb. 10 2009,13:08)
 
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,06:01)

You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice.

You know someone has true humility when they have to point it out to you.  :D

Louis, I love reading your posts.  You clearly know what you are talking about, and you seem to really enjoy teaching others.  You have the patience of a saint.

A saint?  Louis?  Well, he could look like this Saint, I guess..




For those that couldn't place it, this is actually Marcelino Ravery.  Or maybe Louis at last weeks staff meeting...
he is British donchaknow, and they do take things a bit more seriously than we do here in the states.

Ok, I'll cough to wearing the funny dress, but a crucifix? Come ON! Even I wouldn't go that far.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,13:48   

Oh and before I forget, I just want to commend Gary (Dr GH) for his post, I didn't even think of explaining to RFJE that there are organisms with "unnatural" amino acids in them. This is why a multidisciplinary approach is a great thing. The consilience of data from disparate fields is one thing creationists can't get their heads around.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,13:57   

Quote (JLT @ Feb. 10 2009,19:36)
Quote

b) Lack of stratospheric ozone is not a problem because UV radiation is not only destructive. It is also positively useful. Many “complex” molecules exist in space (in conditions of vastly greater UV radiation), not only that but UV can promote certain reactions. For example the formose reaction is positively aided by UV radiation.


Isn't UV also absorped by water?
I always thought that the shorter the wavelenght, the more water the light can pass through before it's filtered out. I tried to find out how deep that is for UV light and I found this list (German) with absorption coefficents for different wavelenght and the layer thickness* after which the intensity is reduced to 1/1000 of the original:

Lambda(nm)     k(1/m)      x(0,001)(m)
=======================================
200           ca. 7            1
250           ca. 1            7
300           ca. 0,2         35
350           ca. 0,2         35
400           ca. 0,06       110
450           ca. 0,02       350
500           ca. 0,025      280
550           ca. 0,05       140
600           ca. 0,2         35
650           ca. 0,32        22
700           ca. 0,65        11
750           ca. 2,6          2,7
800           ca. 2,0          3,5
1000            37            0,19

So, the shorter the wavelength, the deeper the light can reach seems to be true only for the visible light. According to this list UV light can't reach as deep as e.g. blue light.

Does anyone know whether that is true?
Unfortunately, the author of that list states that he found several vastly different absorption coefficents for UV light in the literature and he would provide only a "best guess".


* This isn't exactly a topic I discuss on a daily basis, so I'm not sure whether I use the correct terms. I hope it's still clear what I mean....

Yes water does absorb UV to some extent.

As for how deep different wavelengths of EM radiation can penetrate into bodies of water, I honestly don't know off the top of my head. I'm also not sure about the correlation between wavelength and depth of penetration. A couple of things spring to mind though:

a) Gamma rays, X rays, cosmic radiation etc pass through water. They have very short wavelengths compared to blue light for example.

b) Different materials have different absorption spectra, so there isn't necessarily a linear relationship between wavelength and depth of penetration.

I could be wrong however, I'll nip off and have a read!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,14:05   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,14:57)
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 10 2009,19:36)


Isn't UV also absorped by water?
I always thought that the shorter the wavelenght, the more water the light can pass through before it's filtered out. I tried to find out how deep that is for UV light and I found this list (German) with absorption coefficents for different wavelenght and the layer thickness* after which the intensity is reduced to 1/1000 of the original:


Yes water does absorb UV to some extent.

As for how deep different wavelengths of EM radiation can penetrate into bodies of water, I honestly don't know off the top of my head. I'm also not sure about the correlation between wavelength and depth of penetration. A couple of things spring to mind though:

a) Gamma rays, X rays, cosmic radiation etc pass through water. They have very short wavelengths compared to blue light for example.

b) Different materials have different absorption spectra, so there isn't necessarily a linear relationship between wavelength and depth of penetration.

I could be wrong however, I'll nip off and have a read!

Louis

Admit you don't know?

Look it up?

You'll never be a good IDiot.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2082
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,14:12   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,15:47)
Firstly, like my route to the pub, many of the amino acids found in modern organisms are relatively simple (i.e. the R group side chain is not 16 Buckminster-fullerenes linked into a Borromean ring system, it’s a methyl or tolyl group etc).

This image made my morning.  Thanks, Louis.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,14:18   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 10 2009,12:12)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,15:47)
Firstly, like my route to the pub, many of the amino acids found in modern organisms are relatively simple (i.e. the R group side chain is not 16 Buckminster-fullerenes linked into a Borromean ring system, it’s a methyl or tolyl group etc).

This image made my morning.  Thanks, Louis.

The mystery lies in his route back from the pub.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,14:37   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,13:36)



For those that couldn't place it, this is actually Marcelino Ravery.  Or maybe Louis at last weeks staff meeting...
he is British donchaknow, and they do take things a bit more seriously than we do here in the states.[/quote]

Ok, I'll cough to wearing the funny dress, but a crucifix? Come ON! Even I wouldn't go that far.

Louis

Louis - What???  You don't like it????

Oh!  I see - you thought it was "just a toy" crucifix...

Nope - This is an actual built-to-scale model!* - (The C-0909 model) It is for use with LOLCatz**, leprechauns and fairies that cross the line and offend you.

* Yeah, you DO need a slightly larger model for IDists.

** For some reason, I could not find a LOL Cat on a crucifix! :(

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,16:38   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,19:57)
       
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 10 2009,19:36)
   
Isn't UV also absorped by water?
[snip]
So, the shorter the wavelength, the deeper the light can reach seems to be true only for the visible light. According to this list UV light can't reach as deep as e.g. blue light.

Does anyone know whether that is true?
Unfortunately, the author of that list states that he found several vastly different absorption coefficents for UV light in the literature and he would provide only a "best guess".

Yes water does absorb UV to some extent.

As for how deep different wavelengths of EM radiation can penetrate into bodies of water, I honestly don't know off the top of my head. I'm also not sure about the correlation between wavelength and depth of penetration. A couple of things spring to mind though:

a) Gamma rays, X rays, cosmic radiation etc pass through water. They have very short wavelengths compared to blue light for example.

b) Different materials have different absorption spectra, so there isn't necessarily a linear relationship between wavelength and depth of penetration.

I could be wrong however, I'll nip off and have a read!

Louis

Thank you!
Re. a) That fits with what I'd thought before I found this list.

Re. b) That's obviously true (otherwise we wouldn't see different colours), but it didn't occur to me that it applies to water, too. Thanks for reminding me.

I've read a bit more myself and found out that I've forgotten A LOT since I had physics classes during my study.... I'm sure that we learned about the Beer-Lambert law and I seem to remember that we used an experimental setting like this

to calculate concentrations but most of it I eradicated quite successfully from my memory...

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,16:54   

Quote (JLT @ Feb. 10 2009,22:38)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,19:57)
         
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 10 2009,19:36)
   
Isn't UV also absorped by water?
[snip]
So, the shorter the wavelength, the deeper the light can reach seems to be true only for the visible light. According to this list UV light can't reach as deep as e.g. blue light.

Does anyone know whether that is true?
Unfortunately, the author of that list states that he found several vastly different absorption coefficents for UV light in the literature and he would provide only a "best guess".

Yes water does absorb UV to some extent.

As for how deep different wavelengths of EM radiation can penetrate into bodies of water, I honestly don't know off the top of my head. I'm also not sure about the correlation between wavelength and depth of penetration. A couple of things spring to mind though:

a) Gamma rays, X rays, cosmic radiation etc pass through water. They have very short wavelengths compared to blue light for example.

b) Different materials have different absorption spectra, so there isn't necessarily a linear relationship between wavelength and depth of penetration.

I could be wrong however, I'll nip off and have a read!

Louis

Thank you!
Re. a) That fits with what I'd thought before I found this list.

Re. b) That's obviously true (otherwise we wouldn't see different colours), but it didn't occur to me that it applies to water, too. Thanks for reminding me.

I've read a bit more myself and found out that I've forgotten A LOT since I had physics classes during my study.... I'm sure that we learned about the Beer-Lambert law and I seem to remember that we used an experimental setting like this

to calculate concentrations but most of it I eradicated quite successfully from my memory...

{facepalm}

The Beer-Lambert Law!!!!!!! DAGNABIT!

{Sound of Louis going back to first year physics lectures*}

Louis

*Senility, I has it.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,16:56   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 10 2009,20:12)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,15:47)
Firstly, like my route to the pub, many of the amino acids found in modern organisms are relatively simple (i.e. the R group side chain is not 16 Buckminster-fullerenes linked into a Borromean ring system, it’s a methyl or tolyl group etc).

This image made my morning.  Thanks, Louis.

Your (hic) very welcome.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,16:57   

Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 10 2009,20:18)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 10 2009,12:12)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,15:47)
Firstly, like my route to the pub, many of the amino acids found in modern organisms are relatively simple (i.e. the R group side chain is not 16 Buckminster-fullerenes linked into a Borromean ring system, it’s a methyl or tolyl group etc).

This image made my morning.  Thanks, Louis.

The mystery lies in his route back from the pub.

Very true, very true. The uncertainty in homeward route is vast. All I know is that it involved three specific locations:

1) The kebab shop.

2) The gutter.

3) Eventually, the doghouse.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,17:53   

This patron at my bar turned around to leave and fell flat on his face.
He crawled to the door and thought, “I only live a block away.  I’ll
just crawl home.”
So he crawled home, crawled in his house, crawled into the bedroom and
crawled into bed with his wife.
She said, “You’ve been drinkin’ again, haven’t you?”
He replied, “Well yes.  How did you guess?”
She answered, “The bar called and said you left your wheelchair there.”

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,18:22   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,22:54)
*Senility, I has it.

You mean this:
   
Quote
I've read a bit more myself and found out that I've forgotten A LOT since I had physics classes during my study....

is a sign of early-onset senility?



--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,21:21   

This is to Louis: I wanted to thank you for the chemistry lesson.  You are the first person who has answered me without insulting me.  Though you were a bit sarcastic.

As you know, Louis I am not a chemist, that's exactly why I stripped material from the internet. One strike?  You are quite high-minded aren't you?  I do have a field of knowledge--it is just not chemistry.  

So anyway, I just wanted to let you know that you successfully refuted a public school teacher with a B.S. Ed in biology and a minor in chemistry from Montana State University, with 8 years of science teaching in PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  And also Dr. Georgia Purdom PhD, molecular genetics (Ohio State University). They wrote and edited respectively the book "Evolution Exposed."  It had an endorsement from Dr. David Menton PhD, cell biology (Brown University).

I did paraphrase what was in the book and erred in one sense, in that I said amino acids and their bonds break in water.  Here is the actual quote pp. 139. "Proteins cannot form in water because the water breaks the bonds that hold the amino acids together--a process called hydrolysis."

But you proved them wrong so I'm not supposed to repeat the point I know.  My question is, Louis, "Which PhD are we supposed to believe?"

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,21:28   

Another thing you've got to learn. Having a PhD doesn't make you intelligent or correct.

Look for any off the wall crazy idea you can think of, and you'll find a handful of PhDs pushing it. Aura feeling, alternative medicine of all sorts, psychic powers, moon landing conspiracies, 9/11 truthers, alien abductions, Illuminati, etc, etc, etc.

Hell, just turn on the TV during infomercials and watch all the PhD endorsements for bullshit products fly by.

What matters isn't what a handful of PhDs claim, what matters is reality and evidence.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,21:29   

RFJE:

Quote

You [Louis] are the first person who has answered me without insulting me.


Eh?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Lou FCD



Posts: 5452
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,21:31   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,22:21)
"Proteins cannot form in water because the water breaks the bonds that hold the amino acids together--a process called hydrolysis."

Well, that's news to my body, which is mostly made of water. The second most abundant stuff is proteins.

...made from amino acids.


...in water.

ETA: A process called "you're an idiot".

Edited by Lou FCD on Feb. 10 2009,22:34

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,21:34   

Mayberry RFD,

I thought I was puffed up because of cheeseburgers, but it turns out it's only my vast store of knowledge.  That's a relief!  Thanks.

Louis isn't high-minded.  He's definitely low-brow.  I'm high-minded.  Just ask me.

As for "which PhD to believe," well this will come as a shock to an ignorant but literate person such as yourself, but as a scientist I don't "believe" anything.  Certainly not a PhD.  'Cause I am one and I don't believe me.  

You can believe that.

Here's what you do RFD old bean, go into a lab and do the experiment.  Come back and tell us all about protein hydrolysis.  Go into the field and look at the rocks.  Get yourself a stick and a nail and chart the stars.  Grow some pea plants.  Do it yourself.  If you don't "believe" it, go out and do something.  No one's stopping you.

So while you were out in the missionary position, I was in a lab night and day (cue violins, Louis) working on pattern recognition of dipeptide mass spectra.  Funny thing, I never believed it would work.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,22:37   

(Feels that this is appropriate)   :)    :)

Just a step cried the sad man
Take a look down at the madman
Theatre kings on silver wings
Fly beyond reason
From the flight of the seagull
Come the spread claws of the eagle
Only fear breaks the silence
As we all kneel pray for guidance

Tread the road cross the abyss
Take a look down at the madness
On the streets of the city
Only spectres still have pity
Patient queues for the gallows
Sing the praises of the hallowed
Our machines feed the furnace
If they take us they will burn us

Will you still know who you are
When you come to who you are

When the flames have their season
Will you hold to your reason
Loaded down with your talons
Can you still keep your balance
Can you live on a knife-edge


- Emerson/Lake/Frazer/Jandcek

But there it is      :)      :)

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,22:51   

This is from you Louis

"Dear All,

Since a major part of all our online (and possibly even offline) existences is spent engaging in debate with various types of people. I was curious about a few things.

1) What actually motivates us to do this?"

Louis, I don't if you're an atheist, but you know many evolutionists are.  Forgive me if I'm wrong, and I ask these questions under no false pretense.

Assuming that you and I are just results of biochemistry, then what chemical process took place in you to motivate you toward science?  I am completely sincere, this is an honest question?  

Like the (cant remember his name) scientist who converted to atheism on "Expelled."  He said "I realized I had no free will."  Therefore whatever we do is all because of the chemistry and the biology.

What is it in us that gives us a desire to know what we don't know?  It must be important, because we fight so hard to guard our perceptions of reality.  But if it is just a biological process that eventually gives in to entropy then why is it so important to us?

Are there  chemical processes that cause love, hope, trust?  There should be somewhere in us.  It should be able to be diagrammed.

Where did sacrificial motives come from? Survival to the fittest.  Chemical processes in the mind?  Should we not have found them by now.

What about ethical judgement--the innate sense of right and wrong?  

Will, determination are these just products of digested, fats, carbs and proteins and the energy they produce.

What about a sense of fun, enjoyment, satisfaction vs. dullness, and boredom?  Chemical processes?  

Why do we cook and not eat our food raw like animals do?  Is it not to enjoy the taste?  What chemical process triggers this desire?

Where did sexual attraction come from and how did it come at the same time as the sexual organs evolved?  What gene is affection associated with, or by what chemical process is it triggered?  And why is it associated with sex?

Will, conscience, emotions, desire, ambitions, motivations, intentions bad and good, are all undeniably a part of our being.  They are as real as the screen in front of you.  They can be defined by neither mathematics, nor diagrammed by chemistry.  They can not be included in cell biology for observation.

Where does music come from?  Is this also a product of chemistry in the mind?  I am a musician and it seems to come from elsewhere.

What other species has serial killers?  Why are there people who kill for fun or fascination.  Are these mutations or evil?  Is evil just an idea of antiquity or is it evil--ask anyone who is on the receiving end of an evil and they will tell you.

If someone told you that affection or hate were not real because they are not perceived by the 5 senses, would tell them they were crazy? because they are perceived IN you.  What is the perceiving unit?  Even it is unseen and can not be defined by natural means.

What chemical process gives us the perceived sensation of knowing ourselves inwardly, but at the same time gives us the desire to project a certain image on the outside?  How can we discern a fake, even when we have no proof?  Isn't it because most of us are guilty of hypocrisy at one time or the other?

If all of this is just the brain, then we should have been able to detect the chemical and biological activity associated with it, if we are nothing more than chemicals.

But what if we have a soul Mr. Louis?  A spirit that perceives all these things that we undeniably sense inside.  And what if the Bible is true that our soul is eternal and we will give account?  Is our sense of fair and unfair a shadow of God's judgement?  Do we have his spiritual DNA?  






Assuming the naturalist

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,23:07   

RFJE, just think about this:  If many (if not all) thought processes weren't chemically-oriented, then why do certain chemicals make people feel a certain way?  After all, it's a pretty well-known fact that caffiene makes a person feel more awake and aware.  And that opiates make you feel rather painless.  And that other chemicals make you feel happy.  or sad.  or goofy.  one of those chemicals is in wine, ya know.  

Really, are you older than 18?  I mean, come on, this is just off the top of my head here, and I'm no genius.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,23:44   

Oh boy! From chemistry to neuro-chemistry to cognitive studies to psychology.

Goalposts on wheels, RFJE?

What about reasserting your initial claims with your own words, in light of what Louis and Doc GH have so patiently explained to you citing many references?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,23:58   

And I forgot: some ranges of head trauma can actualy alter one's personality drasticaly. Do you really think it's your "eternal soul" being altered? what about people in a vegetative state? What happened to their "eternal souls"?

Just so you don't ponder too much and see where I'm coming from: I think bringing to actually fonctional people a concept of hell in which they'll burn eternaly if they don't follow a book is the quintescence of evil. Every missionary should be locked up.

There, no sympathy from me.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
clamboy



Posts: 299
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,00:46   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,22:51)
This is from you Louis

"Dear All,

Since a major part of all our online (and possibly even offline) existences is spent engaging in debate with various types of people. I was curious about a few things.

1) What actually motivates us to do this?"

---snip BLAH-DE-FRICKIN'-BLAH-SAME-OLD-SAME-OLD-DID-YOU-THINK-YOU-WERE-BEING-ORIGINAL???-REGURGITATED-CRAP-MY-E
FFING-GAWD-RFJE-YOU-ARE-REPEATING-BULLSPIT-THAT-WAS-OLD-TWO-DECADES-AGO-LOUIS-IF-YOU-DON'T-CALL-THIRD-STRIKE-YOU-ARE-A-SPINELESS-LOSER-AFDAVE!AFDAVE!AFDAVE!-WHAT-AN-ARROGANT-BASTARD-IS-RFJE-MAKES!-ME!-FRICKIN!-SICK!!!!---

CHEEZ WHIZ, JREF, FREJ, WHATEVER - there was as time, a few years ago, when I wanted to have a good long talk with a creationist, but thank you very much again for convincing me that such an endeavor is...utterly...USELESS!!!

I am getting my breath back now. RFJE, people like you should never be in a position of power. EVER.

RFJE, YOU ARE THE MOST ARROGANT, IGNORANT, HUBRISTIC LOSER SINCE afdave MOVED ON TO OTHER PASTURES. ARGH, YOU SICKENING SICKENING INTENTIONAL IGNORAMUS!!!

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,03:33   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 11 2009,03:21)
This is to Louis: I wanted to thank you for the chemistry lesson.  You are the first person who has answered me without insulting me.  Though you were a bit sarcastic.

As you know, Louis I am not a chemist, that's exactly why I stripped material from the internet. One strike?  You are quite high-minded aren't you?  I do have a field of knowledge--it is just not chemistry.  

So anyway, I just wanted to let you know that you successfully refuted a public school teacher with a B.S. Ed in biology and a minor in chemistry from Montana State University, with 8 years of science teaching in PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  And also Dr. Georgia Purdom PhD, molecular genetics (Ohio State University). They wrote and edited respectively the book "Evolution Exposed."  It had an endorsement from Dr. David Menton PhD, cell biology (Brown University).

I did paraphrase what was in the book and erred in one sense, in that I said amino acids and their bonds break in water.  Here is the actual quote pp. 139. "Proteins cannot form in water because the water breaks the bonds that hold the amino acids together--a process called hydrolysis."

But you proved them wrong so I'm not supposed to repeat the point I know.  My question is, Louis, "Which PhD are we supposed to believe?"

RFJE,

A BIT sarcastic? I take that as an insult! I am very sarcastic thank you.

Which PhD to believe? Don't believe anyone because they have a PhD. It's not a good enough reason. Look at what Nerull and Doc Bill have said. Actually ignore the bit about low brow/high minded from Doc Bill, I'm both!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,04:57   

I wish I could express my opinion using a lot of words but I find that too difficult and time consuming so I'll limit myself to just one simple, basic observation that I believe those two leaves of the same tree, Daniel and RFJE ought to consider:

The theory of evolution is like an onion. You need to burrow from the outside to get to the core. I believe that's the gospel truth about evolution - you'll never understand it if you start with complex subjects like cell chemistry - not to mention the origins of the first cell, aka abiogenesis.

 
Quote
Assuming that you and I are just results of biochemistry, then what chemical process took place in you to motivate you toward science?  I am completely sincere, this is an honest question?

The question may be sincere and honest, but it also is completely absurd. IMHO, it shows however that you have a lot of homework to do before you know what you are asking for. You just are not ready. We all need to learn to crawl before we learn to walk. I've been crawling for 70 years but I can do some steps too...

Another point: A honest and sincere quest for the truth about evolution requires an open mind, where God and religion is put aside. As long as God stands in the way, no comprehension is possible.

So my best advice is, leave God out of your thinking when you study scientific issues, let them speak for themselves without intervention from God. Can you do that?

OTOH, the Holy Spirit of Truth is a fine companion, trust it! Speaking of spirit, do God, or spirit, really move atoms and molecules? Or are they obeying the laws of nature - about which we still have an awful lot to learn? About which we never may know all we would want to know. Will we ever be able to untangle the sobject of Complexity? Who understands quantum mechanics? Maybe it is a bit premature to proclaim the ToE invalid? What is God, is 'he', or rather it,  a tinkerer, messing with everything in the world, or is it more like a spirit pervading the universe?

Anyone who really knows, please speak up, show us the evidence.

The creationist's problem is not so much about science as it is about psychology, religion and philosophy. And then some.

Well, I managed a few words more than I though I could...

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,05:37   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 11 2009,04:51)
This is from you Louis

"Dear All,

Since a major part of all our online (and possibly even offline) existences is spent engaging in debate with various types of people. I was curious about a few things.

1) What actually motivates us to do this?"

Louis, I don't if you're an atheist, but you know many evolutionists are.  Forgive me if I'm wrong, and I ask these questions under no false pretense.

Assuming that you and I are just results of biochemistry, then what chemical process took place in you to motivate you toward science?  I am completely sincere, this is an honest question?  

Like the (cant remember his name) scientist who converted to atheism on "Expelled."  He said "I realized I had no free will."  Therefore whatever we do is all because of the chemistry and the biology.

What is it in us that gives us a desire to know what we don't know?  It must be important, because we fight so hard to guard our perceptions of reality.  But if it is just a biological process that eventually gives in to entropy then why is it so important to us?

Are there  chemical processes that cause love, hope, trust?  There should be somewhere in us.  It should be able to be diagrammed.

Where did sacrificial motives come from? Survival to the fittest.  Chemical processes in the mind?  Should we not have found them by now.

What about ethical judgement--the innate sense of right and wrong?  

Will, determination are these just products of digested, fats, carbs and proteins and the energy they produce.

What about a sense of fun, enjoyment, satisfaction vs. dullness, and boredom?  Chemical processes?  

Why do we cook and not eat our food raw like animals do?  Is it not to enjoy the taste?  What chemical process triggers this desire?

Where did sexual attraction come from and how did it come at the same time as the sexual organs evolved?  What gene is affection associated with, or by what chemical process is it triggered?  And why is it associated with sex?

Will, conscience, emotions, desire, ambitions, motivations, intentions bad and good, are all undeniably a part of our being.  They are as real as the screen in front of you.  They can be defined by neither mathematics, nor diagrammed by chemistry.  They can not be included in cell biology for observation.

Where does music come from?  Is this also a product of chemistry in the mind?  I am a musician and it seems to come from elsewhere.

What other species has serial killers?  Why are there people who kill for fun or fascination.  Are these mutations or evil?  Is evil just an idea of antiquity or is it evil--ask anyone who is on the receiving end of an evil and they will tell you.

If someone told you that affection or hate were not real because they are not perceived by the 5 senses, would tell them they were crazy? because they are perceived IN you.  What is the perceiving unit?  Even it is unseen and can not be defined by natural means.

What chemical process gives us the perceived sensation of knowing ourselves inwardly, but at the same time gives us the desire to project a certain image on the outside?  How can we discern a fake, even when we have no proof?  Isn't it because most of us are guilty of hypocrisy at one time or the other?

If all of this is just the brain, then we should have been able to detect the chemical and biological activity associated with it, if we are nothing more than chemicals.

But what if we have a soul Mr. Louis?  A spirit that perceives all these things that we undeniably sense inside.  And what if the Bible is true that our soul is eternal and we will give account?  Is our sense of fair and unfair a shadow of God's judgement?  Do we have his spiritual DNA?  






Assuming the naturalist

***LENGTH WARNING, APOLOGIES TO SCROLLING FINGERS***

RFJE,

Good gravy! A stream of consciousness. Do you feel better yet? Is it all out? Have the goalposts moved once more? I thought evolution was false because of chemistry (it isn't), now it's wrong because of.....?

Before I continue there is one thing: learn how to quote  things, please. See above the window you type your comments in there is a little button marked "Quote", it will put the quote tags into your text for you, [QUOTE  ] at the start and [/QUOTE  ] at the end, making things easier to read. I don't always do this myself, but it'd general good practise and helps us all. Also, please link things like old posts, just for the sake of ease. When you are quoting websites a link to what you've quoted is very useful, it allows people to see what you are quoting in detail, and explore things further themselves. It's a basic tenet of intellectual honesty.

There are also five more relevant things I want to mention before I get into all of this:

a) Just because science may or may not have concrete answer to every question yet does not mean that your (or anyone's) religious explanation is automatically the default answer. Every scientist worth his or her salt will cheerfully admit that there are things we don't yet know.

b) I am neither a biochemist nor a neuroscientist, but I do have some brief familiarity with some aspects of these fields. So, like before, rather than present you with definitive answers and direct proof (which is practically impossible over the internet anyway, I am not typing out textbooks for you or leading you into a laboratory) I'll try to provide you with a few links which you can follow to begin your own investigations.

c) "Pathetic levels of detail". One of William Dembski's (a famous, and famously dishonest, intelligent design creationist) more famous quotes, very illustrative of his mindset (and yours, judging by your questions) is:

Quote
You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC [irreducibly complex] systems that is what ID is discovering.


From here.

Needless to say this an astounding piece of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty on Demsbki's part. He's basically trying to say that he has to provide no detail whatsoever for his propositions. If you want to do science, and Dembski pretends he does, then the devil is in the detail. Superficiality don't cut it. Now why do I mention this? I am pre-empting a very common creationist complaint, forgive me if you are not going to make it, but judging by the tone and type of your questions I can see it galloping towards us.

As above, if science hasn't (yet) provided a detailed answer to a problem, it doesn't follow that any other explanation is automatically the answer UNLESS that answer has a sufficient level of detail, and correspondingly matches the available evidence. So "goddidit" is absolutely not an answer to anything, it is the abandonment of enquiry, it simply pushes the problem one step further back. I will not accept "goddidit" as an answer for anything, only a dishonest attempt to avoid the answer "I don't know". No sympathy for non-answers. See the god of the gaps for more detail. Again, this is a beginning point for your investigations.

d) Doubt. As the physicist Richard Feynman said:

Quote
I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything, and in many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here, and what the question might mean. I might think about a little, but if I can’t figure it out, then I go to something else. But I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn’t frighten me.


Not knowing something, perhaps just not knowing something yet, is no crime. Not knowing something is not the end of enquiry, it is the beginning. We scientists LIKE not knowing something, it keeps us in a job! Not knowing things is WHY we try to find them out, it is for me why I became a scientist: because there are things (many, many, many, MANY things) I don't know. I don't crave certainty because I know that certainty is not possible, I am merely seeking to reduce the number of things I don' know about.

e) HUGENESS! The questions you ask are only really answerable at huge length with huge reference to the available evidence. Needless to say I i) cannot reproduce all of that here and ii) am not even going to try to! You need to do the work yourself. As I explained to Denial Smith, I am not interested in reproducing reams of textbook data. I am equally not interested in petty games of oneupmanship and trading authority figures. I couldn't care less that I have "successfully refuted a public school teacher with a B.S. Ed in biology and a minor in chemistry from Montana State University, with 8 years of science teaching in PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  And also Dr. Georgia Purdom PhD, molecular genetics (Ohio State University). They wrote and edited respectively the book "Evolution Exposed."  It had an endorsement from Dr. David Menton PhD, cell biology (Brown University)." It's not anything I'm interested in. If this is some pissing contest for you, then it will be strike three for me, and I'll simply retreat to mockery as is my wont!

Right, enough preamble, enough tips, on with the entertainment, I'll try and organise your stream of consciousness into themes if you don't mind:

1) Atheism:

Yes I am an atheist. I lack a belief in any god or gods. That's very different from believing god/gods doesn't/don't exist by the way, but rather than drift into philosophy, I'll leave it at that. Incidentally no one "converts" to atheism, it's not a religion, it is simply the absence of belief in a deity or deities. You too are an atheist with respect to every god except the one you believe in, I've just gone one god further. BTW "Expelled" is not a good place to get one's information from, it is a wickedly dishonest propaganda piece.

2) We/emotions/feelings/desires are "just" the results of natural processes:

Just the results of biochemistry? JUST? JUST?????? That's a pretty big "just" there my friend! I would suggest that you have no idea about the complexity and quantity of the phenomena you hand wave away with a "just". Anyway, the questions you are asking about thoughts, desires, feelings are simply huge and reduce to one overarching question: Is consciousness the product of the physical and chemical operations of the brain?

The answer to that is very simple: yes.

How do I know this? Well it's pretty simple to demonstrate that the consciousness can be altered by simple physical or chemical interventions. Don't believe me? Ok, here, take the dose of LSD. Seriously, the chemistry of neurotransmitters is very well understood. We can, and do, create drugs to manipulate the nature of people's consciousnesses and minds. We can, and do, induce hallucinations, revelations and altered states of consciousness in people by manipulating electromagnetic fields around people's heads. Obviously there's vastly more to it than this, rather than typing out textbooks for you I suggest you start with the basic things I've recommended to you and work from there.

The bigger question even than that is "HOW is the mind a product of the physical and chemical processes of the brain?".  Now this is vastly more difficult to answer, and as far as I am aware this has yet to be completely solved by science. I am not the best person too ask about this since it is not my area of expertise. Some answers might be found for you here and here. Reciprocating Bill is probably one of the best people to ask here at AtBC. I can recommend the work of Dan Dennett, and in particular his book "Consciousness Explained", which I admit I haven't read in years. You might also like to read about the Hard Problem of Consciousness, something Dennett disagrees exists, but I mention it as an illustration of some of the issues that may crop up.

3) Altruism:

Another huge question. I suggest reading about the evolution of altruism and explanations for its persistence. Altruism, altruism in animals, reciprocal altruism, kin selection, competitive altruism, and empathy altruism.

Since I haven't the time to deal with the rest of this, I'll leave you to get on with your work, just as I have to get on with mine.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,05:39   

[quote=J-Dog,Feb. 10 2009,13:25]  
Quote (ppb @ Feb. 10 2009,13:08)
   
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,06:01)

You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice.

You know someone has true humility when they have to point it out to you.  :D

Louis, I love reading your posts.  You clearly know what you are talking about, and you seem to really enjoy teaching others.  You have the patience of a saint.

A saint?  Louis?  Well, he could look like this Saint, I guess..


Fixed it for you. No ned for thanks.

Edit: WTF is up with formatting? Am I drunk again? Wait, don't answer that.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,05:41   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 11 2009,11:39)
[quote=J-Dog,Feb. 10 2009,13:25]  
Quote (ppb @ Feb. 10 2009,13:08)
   
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,06:01)

You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice.

You know someone has true humility when they have to point it out to you.  :D

Louis, I love reading your posts.  You clearly know what you are talking about, and you seem to really enjoy teaching others.  You have the patience of a saint.

A saint?  Louis?  Well, he could look like this Saint, I guess..


Fixed it for you. No ned for thanks.

Wrong Simpsons character.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
nuytsia



Posts: 131
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,05:51   

Cup of sugary tea for clamboy!  :p

At the risk of fueling RFJE's persecution complex...
       
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,14:51)
This is from you Louis

"Dear All,

Since a major part of all our online (and possibly even offline) existences is spent engaging in debate with various types of people. I was curious about a few things.

1) What actually motivates us to do this?"

Louis, I don't if you're an atheist, but you know many evolutionists are.  Forgive me if I'm wrong, and I ask these questions under no false pretense.

Assuming that you and I are just results of biochemistry, then what chemical process took place in you to motivate you toward science?  I am completely sincere, this is an honest question?  


       
Quote
this is an honest question?

No.
No I don't think so.

No this and what follows is a way of moving onto a topic where you probably won't have your arse handed to you so easily... whilst still trying to plead the same point.
No longer able to claim your god lurks behind the "mystery" of the peptide bond... it's time to move on to a myriad of far more nebulous points.
Smart move too!
These are (mostly) bigger questions and far harder to resolve. You'll be able to lodge your "Heere be Dragones" sign in some of these for decades.
That must feel far more reassuring?

I must say I'm slightly disappointed to find that you didn't ask whether "we've really looked at our hands? I mean really looked at them?"

       
Quote
What is it in us that gives us a desire to know what we don't know?  It must be important, because we fight so hard to guard our perceptions of reality.
 
Something that works gets selected for. A species that develops a talent in learning how to manipulate its environment is going to have an edge. Chimps, bonobos and orangs show an impressive set of problem solving skills. Our lineage took it further. A lot further.

       
Quote
It must be important, because we fight so hard to guard our perceptions of reality.

I hate to point this out but our species has a terrible history of curbing it's curiosity in front of authority. Particularly military, religious or a heady mix of both.

       
Quote
But if it is just a biological process that eventually gives in to entropy then why is it so important to us?

We are all going to die so why bother living? This is a nonsense question. We all find our reasons to do things. Otherwise we wouldn't do them. At best this is a philosophical question not a scientific one.

       
Quote
Are there  chemical processes that cause love, hope, trust?

Yes.
       
Quote
There should be somewhere in us.

In the brain, that would be my guess.
       
Quote
It should be able to be diagrammed.

Yes. Possibly. Probably.
How accurate those diagrams are will vary.

   
Quote
Where did sacrificial motives come from? Survival to the fittest.  Chemical processes in the mind?  Should we not have found them by now.

Do have a read about social insects you'll find it most enlightening. Ants and bees are well into sacrifice to save their siblings.
The fact that you think such behaviour might be down to a a few simple chemical process doesn't speak well for you to be honest. That you might think that that is the expectation of evolutionary science.... well....  speaks volumes.

       
Quote
What about ethical judgement--the innate sense of right and wrong?

Some people think that G W Bush was right to invade Iraq. Others don't.
Some people think it's right to deny gay people the rights enjoyed by straight people. Others don't.
What's your point?


       
Quote
Will, determination are these just products of digested, fats, carbs and proteins and the energy they produce.
What about a sense of fun, enjoyment, satisfaction vs. dullness, and boredom?  Chemical processes?

For someone who supposedly teaches science you seem to show a total lack of love for it. If life and all it entails is ultimately explained in terms of chemistry, physics and biology does that rob it of it's wonder?
Really?
Over twenty years ago I had to learn (no great hardship; I relished the experience - like a condiment junky relishes a burger) the detailed biochemistry of photosynthesis (as known then) and I still think it's as cool as fuck. Nothing I've learnt about science has ever detracted from the fact that this is an amazing place to be.
Honestly does understanding how the world works only bring you ambivalence or contempt? Is there only value in seeing it as a magic trick? If so you have my pity.

       
Quote
Why do we cook and not eat our food raw like animals do?  Is it not to enjoy the taste?  What chemical process triggers this desire?

Honestly you are asking this?
Seriously????
Two advantages to cooking....
1) Pre-breakdown of proteins and carbohydrates making digestions easier
2) Killing off parasites and pathogens.
Any group of individuals adopting this have an advantage. Good ideas/practices spread.
You don't know this?
Honestly???

       
Quote
Where did sexual attraction come from and how did it come at the same time as the sexual organs evolved?  What gene is affection associated with, or by what chemical process is it triggered?  And why is it associated with sex?

(sigh)
       
Quote
Where did sexual attraction come from and how did it come at the same time as the sexual organs evolved?

Oh please cite your evidence for this claim.
Pretty please!!!!!!

A very brief summary of the science of sex
The Joy of Sexual Reproduction (for adults only apparently- flagged by creationist (sigh) - very good)
Evolution of Sex
The Origin of Sexual Reproduction

       
Quote
Will, conscience, emotions, desire, ambitions, motivations, intentions bad and good, are all undeniably a part of our being.  They are as real as the screen in front of you.  They can be defined by neither mathematics, nor diagrammed by chemistry.  They can not be included in cell biology for observation.

You know you are dead right. As far as I know they've never isolated the "bad intentions" cell.
Take that science!!!

       
Quote
Where does music come from?  Is this also a product of chemistry in the mind?  I am a musician and it seems to come from elsewhere.

I've never heard you play so I can't comment.
Perhaps it does come from somewhere else....

       
Quote
What other species has serial killers?  Why are there people who kill for fun or fascination.  Are these mutations or evil?  Is evil just an idea of antiquity or is it evil--ask anyone who is on the receiving end of an evil and they will tell you.

Have you ever owned a cat?
Dolphins pods living around east coast of Scotland kill porpoises for no apparent reason. Chimps are known to kill members of other tribes if they catch them alone.
You don't need to believe in god to recognise evil. Atheists don't have any trouble deciding if something is evil. Whether we can realistically attribute this human concept on the natural world is debatable and frankly doesn't get you very far apart from tutting at cats, dolphins, etc.
Again this is a philosophical question not a scientific one.

       
Quote
If someone told you that affection or hate were not real because they are not perceived by the 5 senses, would tell them they were crazy? because they are perceived IN you.  What is the perceiving unit?  Even it is unseen and can not be defined by natural means.

This is of course bullshit.
Which sense is schizophrenia experienced through?
Your argument here, that a rational approach is far too simplistic, is a strawman.

       
Quote
What chemical process gives us the perceived sensation of knowing ourselves inwardly, but at the same time gives us the desire to project a certain image on the outside?  How can we discern a fake, even when we have no proof?  Isn't it because most of us are guilty of hypocrisy at one time or the other?

If all of this is just the brain, then we should have been able to detect the chemical and biological activity associated with it, if we are nothing more than chemicals.

As I said at the beginning of this (as far as I know) scientific knowledge of how the mind works is still in it's infancy so you are safe to hide your god in here if you like.
It may take quite some time to resolve an issue of this subtlety and complexity.
But this is, of course, an argument from ignorance.
Some of us would prefer to wait for the evidence to come in before believing in ripping yarns.

       
Quote
But what if we have a soul Mr. Louis?  A spirit that perceives all these things that we undeniably sense inside.  And what if the Bible is true that our soul is eternal and we will give account?  Is our sense of fair and unfair a shadow of God's judgement?  Do we have his spiritual DNA?


I don't suppose we could prevail upon you to actually provide some evidence that the soul exists could we?
You know you'd be ever so famous if you could.
Lecture circuits. TV interviews. Oprah.
You'd be rich. Rich beyond your wildest dream.
Rich beyond k.e.'s wildest dreams.
... and those are really wild.
Apparently.


Bloody hell this is the longest post I've ever made.
This wine is really good!
:D

ETA - Took me too bloody long to write though!!!  :angry:

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,05:54   


ETA: apologies for the distraction. Please return to your regular viewing.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,06:03   

Why is the sky blue, daddy? Why does a boy's winky look different? Where does music come from? Why does Kitty kill mices? Why have the requirements for a BSc.Ed. fallen so drastically?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,06:17   

Hello,

I did want to apologize for my approach, that I paraphrased a source, and that I mis-paraphrased it.  I said that some amino acids break down in water when I should have said some proteins break down in water.

Here is the actual quote from Evolution Exposed by Roger Patterson..."Proteins can not form in water, because the water breaks the bonds that hold the amino acids together...hydrolysis."

I have read some of your posts and I understand your annoyance with me.  I was out of field of study and I will research this further.

I do believe from my study that hydrolysis is the opposite of dehydration sythesis--correct me if Im wrong.

Also my question would be here is what about the hydrophobic  side chains of the polypeptide chain.  They attract each other to the center of the molecule away from a watery environment.  If they were exposed say to water during spontaneous generation, could it break the peptide bond?

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,06:20   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 11 2009,06:03)
Why is the sky blue, daddy? Why does a boy's winky look different? Where does music come from? Why does Kitty kill mices? Why have the requirements for a BSc.Ed. fallen so drastically?

Why is water wet? why does fire burn? how high is up? Why are you coming at me with a knife daddy?

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,06:28   

yes, he/she does sound like a 4 years old.

I am inclined to take an issue regarding the music stuff. As a professional musician, I find no difficulty in understanding the source of my inspiration: imagination.

Imagination is an abstract thought. Since I do not have any PH.D or extent education in neuroscience, I cannot possibly detail the exact M.O of abstract thought process. But I know for sure that it initiates in the brain, and not some "holy-eternal-soul". Cognitive developement also plays a big part. Having been raised in an environnement surounded by a certain kind of music, I have some ease writting my music in a related style (i.e melodic and symphonic metal in my case, inspired by my living in a mostly classical and rock environnement). Don't ask me to write contemporary music, for I wouldn't even have a clue how to do it. Some people have talents in some areas, some have talents in others. I am not linking that to an "eternal soul", but rather to the wonders of our brain functions, combined with cultural and cognitive aspects...

The day you understand the "magic" in thit is the day you'll understand the wonders of Nature. Assuming your very own talent comes from some hypothetical deity of choice is diminishing to you and the entire human race.

My 0.01$ (because of the economical crises. I won't spend more on creo's)

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,06:47   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 11 2009,06:17)
Hello,

I did want to apologize for my approach, that I paraphrased a source, and that I mis-paraphrased it.  I said that some amino acids break down in water when I should have said some proteins break down in water.

Here is the actual quote from Evolution Exposed by Roger Patterson..."Proteins can not form in water, because the water breaks the bonds that hold the amino acids together...hydrolysis."

I have read some of your posts and I understand your annoyance with me.  I was out of field of study and I will research this further.

I do believe from my study that hydrolysis is the opposite of dehydration sythesis--correct me if Im wrong.

Also my question would be here is what about the hydrophobic  side chains of the polypeptide chain.  They attract each other to the center of the molecule away from a watery environment.  If they were exposed say to water during spontaneous generation, could it break the peptide bond?

Actually, my annoyance with you has multiple bases.

1) quoting egregious lies from creationist sources, which would be obvious to anyone with a high school education in biology OR chemistry

2) moving the goalposts when the lies are exposed

3) extreme bluster about an ignorant claim while simultaneously lecturing those with superior knowledge about their lack of humility

4) mentioning atheism as if it has any relevance in a discussion about science.

There are probably more of them, but those come to the top of the list right now.

So the apology is appreciated. But it will be worthless if you revert to behaviors like those above.

As for your last question, if I can rephrase it as "Will the presence of hydrophobic side chains break the peptide bond?" (ignoring the spurious "during spontaneous generation" bit), the answer is

No.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,06:59   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 11 2009,06:37)
Reciprocating Bill is probably one of the best people to ask here at AtBC.

I dunno.

A position that simultaneously claims an innate sense of right and wrong and the existence of serial killers as positive evidence is probably too ameboid for much constructive discussion.

Plus Refredjee is clearly abjectly ignorant of some of the obvious starting points for a discussion of the well studied neurobiological bases of many human and mammalian feeling states (love, lust, care and attachment, etc.) - e.g. the limbic system, mediation of sexual and loving feelings by oxytocin, etc. This is basic stuff.  

Mostly I'm still stuck on his ridiculous claims of "humility," "wisdom," and "god's edification." But perhaps he would like to acknowledge his unreflective arrogance in making some of the claims he has made. Let's see if he's got a neuron for that.

ReFred?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,07:08   

RB, I am not sure we yet had a clue about whether RFJE is male or female.

And as Al Pacino stated in the most excellent "the devil's advocate":

"Cemicaly speaking, love is no different from eating a large quantity of chocolate".

And this one just for fun and giggles:

"Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughin' His sick, fuckin' ass off! He's a tight-ass! He's a SADIST! He's an absentee landlord! Worship that? NEVER!"

I love tha movie :D

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,07:55   

For more, much more, RFJE blustering, please stop by and visit the UK Board I have linked to.

RFJE - If this is NOT you, please let us know.

kthnxbai
Female First Board

Looks like RFJE loves her /him some UK talk.  No wonder RFJE and Louis get along so well! :)

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,08:03   

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 11 2009,07:55)
For more, much more, RFJE blustering, please stop by and visit the UK Board I have linked to.

RFJE - If this is NOT you, please let us know.

kthnxbai
Female First Board

Looks like RFJE loves her /him some UK talk.  No wonder RFJE and Louis get along so well! :)

yeah, probably him/her/it.

But the sidebar ads are WAY too disruptive to be sure...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,08:51   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 11 2009,08:08)
RB, I am not sure we yet had a clue about whether RFJE is male or female.

Well, back here he stated,
Quote
I was  just a young country boy with a brain sitting on a bank of a creek, fishing (Issac Newton was under an apple tree at one time), watching on the periphery, the trees that had fallen in 1968 and other years afterward from tornadoes in central Illinois...


--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,09:07   

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 11 2009,07:55)
For more, much more, RFJE blustering, please stop by and visit the UK Board I have linked to.

RFJE - If this is NOT you, please let us know.

kthnxbai
Female First Board

Looks like RFJE loves her /him some UK talk.  No wonder RFJE and Louis get along so well! :)

Quote
The bottom line is there are serious problems with YOUR belief system. Well lets see like duh


I'd manage a reply if I could peel my eyes from the lingerie ads. :p

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,09:09   

RB, I stand corrected.

Kristine, ditto!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,10:08   

Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 11 2009,09:07)
I'd manage a reply if I could peel my eyes from the lingerie ads. :p

Waht???

You get lingerie ads???

Great - all I get are dog-food ads! :(

I hope this ends all the useless talk about their being an intelligent designer...

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,10:11   

Quote
The bigger question even than that is "HOW is the mind a product of the physical and chemical processes of the brain?".


Don't we know darn well from a lot of experience that 'the whole is more than the sum of its parts', and that that is more true than ever when we are talking about the human brain; the most(?) complex organ in the universe?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,10:14   

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 11 2009,10:11)
Quote
The bigger question even than that is "HOW is the mind a product of the physical and chemical processes of the brain?".


Don't we know darn well from a lot of experience that 'the whole is more than the sum of its parts', and that that is more true than ever when we are talking about the human brain; the most(?) complex organ in the universe?

That's a bit presomptuous. We don't know THAT yet :)

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,10:18   

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 11 2009,11:11)
Quote
The bigger question even than that is "HOW is the mind a product of the physical and chemical processes of the brain?".


Don't we know darn well from a lot of experience that 'the whole is more than the sum of its parts', and that that is more true than ever when we are talking about the human brain; the most(?) complex organ in the universe?

I don't know about that.  I can think of some other pretty complex organs.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,10:19   

Sorry, was talking about the "most(?) complex". Didn't see the question mark.

I am due a right telling-of!

My bad.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,10:52   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 11 2009,11:54)

ETA: apologies for the distraction. Please return to your regular viewing.

Libel? Oh the Dembski stuff? LOL

a) I am in the UK, good luck Dembski.

b) The libel laws we have here require what I have written to be untrue and materially damaging to Dembski.

I *hope* he sues me, especially under UK law.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,10:56   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 11 2009,12:59)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 11 2009,06:37)
Reciprocating Bill is probably one of the best people to ask here at AtBC.

I dunno.

A position that simultaneously claims an innate sense of right and wrong and the existence of serial killers as positive evidence is probably too ameboid for much constructive discussion.

Plus Refredjee is clearly abjectly ignorant of some of the obvious starting points for a discussion of the well studied neurobiological bases of many human and mammalian feeling states (love, lust, care and attachment, etc.) - e.g. the limbic system, mediation of sexual and loving feelings by oxytocin, etc. This is basic stuff.  

Mostly I'm still stuck on his ridiculous claims of "humility," "wisdom," and "god's edification." But perhaps he would like to acknowledge his unreflective arrogance in making some of the claims he has made. Let's see if he's got a neuron for that.

ReFred?

LOL All I meant was, patience for dealing with the terminally dumb aside, that you (IIRC) are one of the more informed punters here on matters neuroscience/philosophy/psychology. Certainly better informed than me.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Louis

ETA: I didn't see the point of going into oxytocin, serotonin, endorphins, pheromones (ooh controversial!) etc, if what RFJE needs is a simple "get off the ground" push to find a few things out himself. At least that's the route I'm taking. When someone has trouble telling the difference between a peptide and a peptide bond (for example) then detailing biochemical cascades is a waste  of time. Mind you, this whole shebang might be a waste of time,I'm not yet at strike 3.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,11:05   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 11 2009,12:17)
Hello,

I did want to apologize for my approach, that I paraphrased a source, and that I mis-paraphrased it.  I said that some amino acids break down in water when I should have said some proteins break down in water.

Here is the actual quote from Evolution Exposed by Roger Patterson..."Proteins can not form in water, because the water breaks the bonds that hold the amino acids together...hydrolysis."

I have read some of your posts and I understand your annoyance with me.  I was out of field of study and I will research this further.

I do believe from my study that hydrolysis is the opposite of dehydration sythesis--correct me if Im wrong.

Also my question would be here is what about the hydrophobic  side chains of the polypeptide chain.  They attract each other to the center of the molecule away from a watery environment.  If they were exposed say to water during spontaneous generation, could it break the peptide bond?

RFJE,

I am not annoyed with you.

Yet.

I am certainly not annoyed with you because you are "out of field of study" or anything like it.

The solution structure of proteins is SERIOUSLY complicated. What conformations they adopt depends on their solvation. You're right that hydrophobic side chains will orient themselves in such a way that they minimise contact with water if the protein is solvated in water, but this is merely the molecule adopting a different conformation. This involves a change in the global hydrogen bonding of the molecule, NOT the covalent bonds holding the molecule together. Put the protein in a different solvent (or a differently pH buffered aqueous solvent system) and the protein's solution structure will change.

So to answer your question (as Albatrossity has already), no. If forming proteins were exposed to water during the early stages of abiogenesis then no they would not break down (all other things being equal, i.e. mild temperature, pressure, pH etc. It is possible to break the peptide bond by hydrolysis, but the detail is important. The temperature and pH are vital. Simply putting a protein into water will not destroy it at any appreciable rate). Again, as demonstrated by the Schotten-Baumann conditions for peptide synthesis, water is not only tolerated, it can be required.

Clear yet?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,11:15   

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 11 2009,16:11)
Quote
The bigger question even than that is "HOW is the mind a product of the physical and chemical processes of the brain?".


Don't we know darn well from a lot of experience that 'the whole is more than the sum of its parts', and that that is more true than ever when we are talking about the human brain; the most(?) complex organ in the universe?

True we do have a great deal of experience with emergent phenomena, but simply saying "it's emergent" doesn't cut the mustard. What specific features are needed for consciousness to arise? Are there cut off points etc? How consciousness arises is a big deal. After all it might be possible to make structures that have consciousness, it's a vital part of producing AI, not just understanding the way the universe works.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,12:07   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 11 2009,12:15)
     
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 11 2009,16:11)
     
Quote
The bigger question even than that is "HOW is the mind a product of the physical and chemical processes of the brain?".


Don't we know darn well from a lot of experience that 'the whole is more than the sum of its parts', and that that is more true than ever when we are talking about the human brain; the most(?) complex organ in the universe?

True we do have a great deal of experience with emergent phenomena, but simply saying "it's emergent" doesn't cut the mustard. What specific features are needed for consciousness to arise? Are there cut off points etc? How consciousness arises is a big deal. After all it might be possible to make structures that have consciousness, it's a vital part of producing AI, not just understanding the way the universe works.

Louis

It is also important to recall that there are "less hard" questions vis consciousness for which we are well on the way to having answers. For example, we have a very detailed understanding of the many streams and layers of neural processing that provide the foundation for vision and other forms of sensory consciousness. Most of the questions posed by ReFred, for which the only answer he can think of is "the soul," fall into the same class. We can attain a very detailed understanding of these specific systems without having a solution in hand for the "hard" question: how is it that any conformation of matter/energy gives rise to subjective experience - which is as much a philosophical/conceptual problem as it is a scientific problem. The bald fact is that conformations of living tissue DO give rise to consiciousness, that it is a common occurrence, and that specific features of subjectivity are unambiguously instantiated in and dependent upon neural tissue.

More generally, I like John Searle on the topic:
   
Quote
The famous mind-problem, the source of so much controversy over the past two millennia, has a simple solution. This solution has been available to any educated person since serious work began on the brain nearly a century ago, and, in a sense, we all know it to be true. Here it is: Mental phenomena are caused by neurophysiological processes in the brain and are themselves features of the brain. To distinguish this view from the many others in the field, I call it "biological naturalism." Mental events and processes are as much a part of our biological natural history as digestion, mitosis, meiosis, or enzyme secretion.

(From The Rediscovery of the Mind)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,19:10   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 10 2009,23:44)
Oh boy! From chemistry to neuro-chemistry to cognitive studies to psychology.

Goalposts on wheels, RFJE?

What about reasserting your initial claims with your own words, in light of what Louis and Doc GH have so patiently explained to you citing many references?

Okay, I thought I was not supposed to repeat the same points over and over. It says this in your rules when I entered the site.  Louis might give me another strike also (wink). Just kidding Louis!

Either water stops the peptide bonds from forming or it doesn't.  Several of you said it doesn't.  Why argue?  Am I qualified to argue in chemistry.  A high school biology/chemistry teacher from Montana says it would, backed by a PhD in molecular genetics in Ohio.

So I guess you really want it, don't y'all (see I even use colloquial language).  I must really entertain you.

Okay, check the next post.

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,19:27   

My high school bio teacher swore he'd seen bigfoot.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,20:18   

Have you ever seen a man who couldn't walk get up after African pastors prayed for him in the name of Jesus?  I have and I knew the man who received the miracle. This took no knowledge except of a promise and a principle.  Mark 16:17,18 (Jesus speaking) "And these signs shall follow them that believe:  In MY NAME they shall...lay hands upon the sick, and they shall recover."  John 14:14 If you shall ask anything in my name I will do it."

The family did not believe in Christ, they were steeped in the fetish, animism, and witchcraft.  But afterward the oldest son spoke before the extended family (maybe 20 people there in the yard).  We believe in spells and the fetish, we see spirits in the woods and we are afraid of them.  We see the spells destroy us, but your God is greater than all of that!"

My sister is a believer also.  She loved milk, but she was diagnosed with "an allergy to milk".  Couldn't even drink acidophilus. After 20 years of this condition she decided she wanted to drink milk, so she started praying and got prayer in church.  She can drink milk now without getting a stomach ache.

Have you ever been divinely protected?  Once about 23 years ago, I had not been a believer long.  I decided to walk to the store about 8 blocks away.  I had always driven it so I was unaware of the two dogs that resided in a certain yard.  On this particular evening, they were running free--big dogs, one a german shepherd.  Hair raised, they were prancing with that expression of the hunt in their eyes, coming right toward me.  You know how a dog cowers when you throw a rock at him.  Well I did nothing, I didn't have time, but they did.  They both looked up at something behind me, yelped, cowered and pranced away with tails down.  There was nothing there that I could see, but they obviously responded to something they saw.

If you think that there is no spiritual world, your spiritual are eyes are shut. If you think that the natural world is all you are all wrong.  I am more sure of that than you are in evolution--because I have seen it and experienced.

Now you can mock, attack my credibility, laugh, whatever.  I really couldn't care less.  I'd rather please God than you people that spread your pernicious beliefs throughout our schools and the media.  

The true church invisible is not a building, nor does it have the name of a denomination on it.  It will survive all onslaughts of opposition.  Jesus said, My word will never pass away.

Can any of you explain the nation of Israel to me?  How could a people who didn't have a nation since 70 AD, when Titus ransacked Jerusalem, return to their land 1900 years later?  Britain and the Balfour Act of 1917?  It is stated in several passage of the OLD TESTAMENT, before this happened, that God would gather his people back to their land--this is speaking in a double prophecy (which is common in scripture) of the first return from exile in Babylon (Read Jeremiah, Daniel) in the last days.  

Daniel, Revelation, the antichrist--a world leader with a messianic like following, who will oppose Israel and also Christians to the point of execution--are all  getting closer to us and the return of Israel is a sign of the last days.

Time is short.  I could tell you more if anyone is interested.  But I will not give what is holy to dogs.

  
subkumquat



Posts: 26
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,20:22   

So, I take it you concede the science arguments then?

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,20:30   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 11 2009,20:18)
Now you can mock, attack my credibility, laugh, whatever.  I really couldn't care less.  I'd rather please God than you people that spread your pernicious beliefs throughout our schools and the media.

I suspect that it would please both god and man (at least this one) if you would take this tripe elsewhere.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,20:36   

christ.  what a bunch of the stuff.

you're all wrong to jesus will sort you out in four pages.  i'd say it was a record but it probably isn't.

suppose i am glad i missed this'un

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,20:52   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 11 2009,21:18)
Have you ever seen a man who couldn't walk get up after African pastors prayed for him in the name of Jesus?  I have and I knew the man who received the miracle. This took no knowledge except of a promise and a principle.  Mark 16:17,18 (Jesus speaking) "And these signs shall follow them that believe:  In MY NAME they shall...lay hands upon the sick, and they shall recover."  John 14:14 If you shall ask anything in my name I will do it."

The family did not believe in Christ, they were steeped in the fetish, animism, and witchcraft.  But afterward the oldest son spoke before the extended family (maybe 20 people there in the yard).  We believe in spells and the fetish, we see spirits in the woods and we are afraid of them.  We see the spells destroy us, but your God is greater than all of that!"

My sister is a believer also.  She loved milk, but she was diagnosed with "an allergy to milk".  Couldn't even drink acidophilus. After 20 years of this condition she decided she wanted to drink milk, so she started praying and got prayer in church.  She can drink milk now without getting a stomach ache.

Have you ever been divinely protected?  Once about 23 years ago, I had not been a believer long.  I decided to walk to the store about 8 blocks away.  I had always driven it so I was unaware of the two dogs that resided in a certain yard.  On this particular evening, they were running free--big dogs, one a german shepherd.  Hair raised, they were prancing with that expression of the hunt in their eyes, coming right toward me.  You know how a dog cowers when you throw a rock at him.  Well I did nothing, I didn't have time, but they did.  They both looked up at something behind me, yelped, cowered and pranced away with tails down.  There was nothing there that I could see, but they obviously responded to something they saw.

If you think that there is no spiritual world, your spiritual are eyes are shut. If you think that the natural world is all you are all wrong.  I am more sure of that than you are in evolution--because I have seen it and experienced.

Now you can mock, attack my credibility, laugh, whatever.  I really couldn't care less.  I'd rather please God than you people that spread your pernicious beliefs throughout our schools and the media.  

The true church invisible is not a building, nor does it have the name of a denomination on it.  It will survive all onslaughts of opposition.  Jesus said, My word will never pass away.

Can any of you explain the nation of Israel to me?  How could a people who didn't have a nation since 70 AD, when Titus ransacked Jerusalem, return to their land 1900 years later?  Britain and the Balfour Act of 1917?  It is stated in several passage of the OLD TESTAMENT, before this happened, that God would gather his people back to their land--this is speaking in a double prophecy (which is common in scripture) of the first return from exile in Babylon (Read Jeremiah, Daniel) in the last days.  

Daniel, Revelation, the antichrist--a world leader with a messianic like following, who will oppose Israel and also Christians to the point of execution--are all  getting closer to us and the return of Israel is a sign of the last days.

Time is short.  I could tell you more if anyone is interested.  But I will not give what is holy to dogs.

Serious guano here.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,21:16   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 11 2009,21:18)
Blah blah blah...I could tell you more if anyone is interested.  But I will not give what is holy to dogs.

See, I tole' you guys that ReFred's "humility" was total horseshit.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,21:30   

I think he's off his meds again... or maybe Jesus hates him and wants to laugh at him.  What a kidder He is, right RFJE?

Hey!  Maybe someone else in his youth group / church / group therapy circle wants to come out and play!

What about it RFJE?  Got a pastor you hate and want to send over to deal with the forces of evil?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,21:40   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 11 2009,21:18)
Have you ever seen <snip moronic, anecdotal crapola which would only appeal to the seriously effed-up/credulous/stupid/religious/yes-I-know-it's-redundant-but-there-you-go>

I suppose this whole post is entirely too long to submit en toto to FSTDT.  Too bad, as it's chock full o'nuggets.

Perhaps if I gave them a paragraph at a time...

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5452
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,21:44   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 11 2009,21:18)
Have you ever seen a man who couldn't walk get up after African pastors prayed for him in the name of Jesus?  

No, and neither have you. I'll be impressed when prayers regrow an amputated limb in a controlled lab. You can do your proselytizing elsewhere.

Want to talk science? Feel free. You're not off to an auspicious start, however. You might want to take a basic biology or chemistry course before you go any further.

...or you can just continue getting your ass handed to you. Whichever.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,21:47   

Fuckit.  Couldn't resist.  Let's see which bits they publish.   :p

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,21:47   

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 11 2009,07:55)
For more, much more, RFJE blustering, please stop by and visit the UK Board I have linked to.

RFJE - If this is NOT you, please let us know.

kthnxbai
Female First Board

Looks like RFJE loves her /him some UK talk.  No wonder RFJE and Louis get along so well! :)

Well, here's part of a RFJE's post on that thread, dated 02/08/09:

Quote
Evolution and the Origin of Life: Real Problems

The origin of life is one of the biggest problems for evolution, because of it's committment to naturalism. That is, that all processes in the universe are explainable using only natural laws. Virtually all other sciences can be explained by natural laws, but there are very real and ignored problems with how the first life began.

We have all heard of the "primordial soup" model of life. That at a point in early earth history, the molten earth cooled, and oceans formed. As rain fell, chemicals in a hypothetical pool organized into proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates. These molecules then organized into cellular structures like proteins, DNA, and cell membranes.

The following are proven chemistry facts that are not shared with the average science illiterate population.



I see oodles and oodles of CSI. I bet if someone used teh Explanatory Filter, they will discover that that post was in fact designed.  :p

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,21:52   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 11 2009,22:44)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 11 2009,21:18)
Have you ever seen a man who couldn't walk get up after African pastors prayed for him in the name of Jesus?  

No, and neither have you. I'll be impressed when prayers regrow an amputated limb in a controlled lab. You can do your proselytizing elsewhere.

Want to talk science? Feel free. You're not off to an auspicious start, however. You might want to take a basic biology or chemistry course before you go any further.

...or you can just continue getting your ass handed to you. Whichever.

Shit, I'd be impressed if I could open a jar without assistance.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,23:10   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 11 2009,21:18)
Have you ever seen a man who couldn't walk get up after African pastors prayed for him in the name of Jesus?  I have and I knew the man who received the miracle. This took no knowledge except of a promise and a principle.  Mark 16:17,18 (Jesus speaking) "And these signs shall follow them that believe:  In MY NAME they shall...lay hands upon the sick, and they shall recover."  John 14:14 If you shall ask anything in my name I will do it."

The family did not believe in Christ, they were steeped in the fetish, animism, and witchcraft.  But afterward the oldest son spoke before the extended family (maybe 20 people there in the yard).  We believe in spells and the fetish, we see spirits in the woods and we are afraid of them.  We see the spells destroy us, but your God is greater than all of that!"

My sister is a believer also.  She loved milk, but she was diagnosed with "an allergy to milk".  Couldn't even drink acidophilus. After 20 years of this condition she decided she wanted to drink milk, so she started praying and got prayer in church.  She can drink milk now without getting a stomach ache.

Have you ever been divinely protected?  Once about 23 years ago, I had not been a believer long.  I decided to walk to the store about 8 blocks away.  I had always driven it so I was unaware of the two dogs that resided in a certain yard.  On this particular evening, they were running free--big dogs, one a german shepherd.  Hair raised, they were prancing with that expression of the hunt in their eyes, coming right toward me.  You know how a dog cowers when you throw a rock at him.  Well I did nothing, I didn't have time, but they did.  They both looked up at something behind me, yelped, cowered and pranced away with tails down.  There was nothing there that I could see, but they obviously responded to something they saw.

If you think that there is no spiritual world, your spiritual are eyes are shut. If you think that the natural world is all you are all wrong.  I am more sure of that than you are in evolution--because I have seen it and experienced.

Now you can mock, attack my credibility, laugh, whatever.  I really couldn't care less.  I'd rather please God than you people that spread your pernicious beliefs throughout our schools and the media.  

The true church invisible is not a building, nor does it have the name of a denomination on it.  It will survive all onslaughts of opposition.  Jesus said, My word will never pass away.

Can any of you explain the nation of Israel to me?  How could a people who didn't have a nation since 70 AD, when Titus ransacked Jerusalem, return to their land 1900 years later?  Britain and the Balfour Act of 1917?  It is stated in several passage of the OLD TESTAMENT, before this happened, that God would gather his people back to their land--this is speaking in a double prophecy (which is common in scripture) of the first return from exile in Babylon (Read Jeremiah, Daniel) in the last days.  

Daniel, Revelation, the antichrist--a world leader with a messianic like following, who will oppose Israel and also Christians to the point of execution--are all  getting closer to us and the return of Israel is a sign of the last days.

Time is short.  I could tell you more if anyone is interested.  But I will not give what is holy to dogs.

You love you some Jebus, we get it.

Now, how about that commandment you all seem to ignore - the one about bearing false witness?

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,23:37   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 11 2009,20:18)
(snip a whole pile of sanctimonious horseshit)

Time is short.  I could tell you more if anyone is interested.  But I will not give what is holy to dogs.

Actually RFJE, instead of telling us about the 1 in 100 cancer patients whose cancer went into remission due to the intervention of a loving Jeebus,  why don't you tell us about the other 99 who died a horrible painful death despite them and their families praying every day?

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,23:47   

Words of wisdom from St. Augustine:

Quote

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,00:24   

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 11 2009,07:55)
For more, much more, RFJE blustering, please stop by and visit the UK Board I have linked to.

RFJE - If this is NOT you, please let us know.
kthnxbai
Female First Board
Looks like RFJE loves her /him some UK talk.  No wonder RFJE and Louis get along so well! :)

I tossed up a quick post there to let folks know where RFJE was currently getting spanked. I'm hoping to draw in more fresh meat a few new faces, since you guys keep smushing all the old ones.

P.S. Try not to break THIS one so damn quick, willya?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,02:05   

Nice, Deadman! Maybe you should have added that we offer free bibles...? :D

Wes: I wanted to use a portion of that quote as my signature when I created my account, but no matter how I cut it, I couldn't come out with anything satisfactory that would fit in the characters limitation. Augustine of Hippo was a great thinker!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,03:15   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 11 2009,18:18)
Have you ever seen a man who couldn't walk get up after African pastors prayed for him in the name of Jesus?

Even if this anecdote had evidence to back it up, it's not terribly compelling in the grand scheme of things.

Consider smallpox: It seems reasonable to assume any believer in prayer would pray for a cure if affected by it. Yet for the last few thousand years, about 1 in 3 of those infected died, without regard to who they prayed to.

Unlike prayer, variolation brought the fatality rate down significantly. In other words... snorting smallpox scabs is a demonstrably more effective than praying. A lot more effective.

Humans, with a bit of science and a lot of hard work accomplished what the preceding millennia of prayer could not: the complete eradication of the disease.

Or how about rabies. Without modern treatment, it is essentially 100% fatal. God cures your sisters lactose intolerance, but ignores every single rabies victim until Pasteur comes along ? Nice!

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,05:13   

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Quote
A simple experiment

For this experiment, we need to find a deserving person who has had both of his legs amputated. For example, find a sincere, devout veteran of the Iraqi war, or a person who was involved in a tragic automobile accident.

Now create a prayer circle like the one created for Jeanna Giese. The job of this prayer circle is simple: pray to God to restore the amputated legs of this deserving person. I do not mean to pray for a team of renowned surgeons to somehow graft the legs of a cadaver onto the soldier, nor for a team of renowned scientists to craft mechanical legs for him. Pray that God spontaneously and miraculously restores the soldier's legs overnight, in the same way that God spontaneously and miraculously cured Jeanna Giese and Marilyn Hickey's mother.

If possible, get millions of people all over the planet to join the prayer circle and pray their most fervent prayers. Get millions of people praying in unison for a single miracle for this one deserving amputee. Then stand back and watch.

What is going to happen? Jesus clearly says that if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. He does not say it once -- he says it many times in many ways in the Bible.

And yet, even with millions of people praying, nothing will happen.


--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,05:21   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 12 2009,02:18)
Have you ever seen a man who couldn't walk get up after African pastors prayed for him in the name of Jesus?....

[SNIP]

RFJE,

Forgive me if I summarise:

Things that you claim are direct evidence of the supernatural:

1) People prayed for a man who could not walk, and then he walked.

2) People prayed for a woman who could not drink milk, and then she could drink milk.

3) When you were attacked by dogs, the dogs looked at something behind you and ran away.

4) Prophecy predicted the modern creation of Israel and the return of Jews to that region.

5) We are in the "last days" due to various aspects of prophecy.

Things relating to "us":

1) "If you think that there is no spiritual world, your spiritual are eyes are shut. If you think that the natural world is all you are all wrong." (This quote of yours is more illustrative than any rephrasing I could make).

2) Your claimed experience of the supernatural constitutes reliable evidence.

3) "We" spread our "pernicious beliefs" in schools and the media.

4) "We" are dogs.

Did I misrepresent anything? I haven't tried to get everything from your post in there, I just wanted to get the key elements. There's a lot to unpack there, you seem to have arrived at AtBC with a rather large quantity of baggage! The difficulty is knowing where to begin.

Rather than initially deal with everything you bring up, I'm going to try to do something different from normal and get to the root of your issues. I'd be very grateful of you could answer a few questions for me:

1) For what purpose have you decided to post at AtBC? Are you on a conversion mission or have you come to discuss things in a more adult manner?

2) Precisely what "pernicious beliefs" do "we" spread through the schools and media?

3) Why are those "pernicious beliefs" pernicious? I.e. what damage do they do and how are they evil?

4) What about those "pernicious beliefs" makes them beliefs? I.e. presumably there are aspects of the real world upon which you and I could agree (more on this in a moment). The word belief at least implies that little or no reference to available evidence is made.

5) Is there any piece of well supported, evidence based science which you think we could agree upon? I'm trying to find some utterly uncontroversial, evidence based common ground  we can build a discussion from. At the moment, I think you're talking at people and just starting a nonsensical flame war.

Cheers

Louis

P.S. Just FYI, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou rants ending in calling the people you are trying to talk to "dogs" are not a good way to engender polite discussion. The missionary zeal and holy fire possibly took you a bit far there. In fact I'm getting the distinct and unpleasant whiff of ignorant arrogance from you RFJE. It happens unfortunately often with the more religious of our chums, try to wipe the froth from your mouth, calm down, and think rationally. Otherwise you'll get your third strike from me, and I'll just ignore or mock you. No great loss for you I'm sure, but if you want a reasonable discussion, you'll have lost at least one possible participant by being obnoxious.

How about this:

Quote
God is the immemorial refuge of the incompetent, the helpless, the miserable. They find not only sanctuary in His arms, but also a kind of superiority, soothing to their macerated egos; He will set them above their betters. H L Mencken


--------------
Bye.

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,06:16   

RFJE, For the life of me, I do not know the difference between casting bread on the water and casting pearls to swine.  

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,06:25   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 12 2009,12:16)
RFJE, For the life of me, I do not know the difference between casting bread on the water and casting pearls to swine.  

Zero

Dogs? Swine?

Isn't it charming how our religious brethren view us? The humility is what impresses me the most.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,06:36   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 12 2009,06:25)
 
Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 12 2009,12:16)
RFJE, For the life of me, I do not know the difference between casting bread on the water and casting pearls to swine.  

Zero

Dogs? Swine?

Isn't it charming how our religious brethren view us? The humility is what impresses me the most.

Louis

Louis, think about it.  My post is an admonishment to RFJE, not you.
IMHO, no one has a wise answer.

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,06:42   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 12 2009,12:36)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 12 2009,06:25)
 
Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 12 2009,12:16)
RFJE, For the life of me, I do not know the difference between casting bread on the water and casting pearls to swine.  

Zero

Dogs? Swine?

Isn't it charming how our religious brethren view us? The humility is what impresses me the most.

Louis

Louis, think about it.  My post is an admonishment to RFJE, not you.
IMHO, no one has a wise answer.

Zero

Oh I got it. I just like the comparisons!

And I'm aware of the "I dunno so no one does" mentality thanks.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,06:56   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 12 2009,13:36)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 12 2009,06:25)
 
Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 12 2009,12:16)
RFJE, For the life of me, I do not know the difference between casting bread on the water and casting pearls to swine.  

Zero

Dogs? Swine?

Isn't it charming how our religious brethren view us? The humility is what impresses me the most.

Louis

Louis, think about it.  My post is an admonishment to RFJE, not you.
IMHO, no one has a wise answer.

Zero

I can safely say that a swine won't give a flying fuck about pearls.

Now go on with your definition of "pearls". If RFJE's religious mumbo-jumbo bullshit is "pearls", count me with the swines. I'd rather eat shit every day than gobble a single of your "pearls".

As for bread on water. Many little fishes could feed on it, eventualy attracting many other creatures that live on fishes...etc

There that's your difference!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,08:12   

Schroedinger’s Dog:

>I'd rather eat shit every day than gobble a single of your "pearls".<
____

FYI, this thought, I jotted in my notes before you posted:
“A sower went forth to sew.  The first seeds were ‘gobbled’ up by the devil.”
I swear.
Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,08:32   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 12 2009,15:12)
Schroedinger’s Dog:

>I'd rather eat shit every day than gobble a single of your "pearls".<
____

FYI, this thought, I jotted in my notes before you posted:
“A sower went forth to sew.  The first seeds were ‘gobbled’ up by the devil.”
I swear.
Zero

Your point being?

If we go in the strictly grammatical sense, "the devil gobbles". I said I'd rather eat shit every day than gobble a single of your "pearls".

Thus: those that gobble your "pearls" are of the devil. QED

Scriptures are useless in a rational argumentation, by the way.

Now let's stop poluting and go on with the discussion.

kthanksbye!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,09:54   

Never seen a preacher heal someone who couldn't walk.

I *have* seem them put people in wheelchairs and pretend to heal them. For the more honest ones, the person may actually have a disability, they just use a wheelchair for convenience, but they are capable of walking. I know people like this.

The more dishonest ones use actors or have people sit in them who never use wheelchairs.

People who can't really stand are ignored and not allowed into the 'healing' area.

Go talk to these people sometime, instead of just relying on what the preacher tells you. They generally are not so enthusiastic about it afterward, since they know they've been played.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,10:07   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 11 2009,20:18)
My sister is a believer also.  She loved milk, but she was diagnosed with "an allergy to milk".  Couldn't even drink acidophilus. After 20 years of this condition she decided she wanted to drink milk, so she started praying and got prayer in church.  She can drink milk now without getting a stomach ache.

RFJE, in all seriousness, I think it's extremely dangerous for your sister to defy medical advice simply to test her own faith this way. Doesn't your Bible teach you not to put your God to the test? You believe in Jesus; even he would not leap from the mountain with the faith that angels would rescue him.

You are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you, but please urge your sister to regularly see a doctor if she's going to continue to drink milk. Surely seeing a doctor doesn't threaten your faith if the doctor confirms that your sister is having no problems.

Anyway, it's my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong, people) that lactose intolerance is due to a dominant gene, so there is no "illness" about not being able to drink milk any more than having brown eyes is an "illness."

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,10:11   

BTW "lactose intolerance" being cured by prayer is small beans compared to some of the crazy claims I've heard.  I remember Jason Gastrich claiming on T.O. he prayed for, and received, better gas mileage.

That was hilarious.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,10:20   

The irony, of course, is that we have a good evolutionary explanation for the emergence of the ability to tolerate lactose among European populations due to animal domestication.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,10:37   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 12 2009,16:20)
The irony, of course, is that we have a good evolutionary explanation for the emergence of the ability to tolerate lactose among European populations due to animal domestication.

Shhhhhhhhh don't mention it. Inconvenient facts are just so prone to get in the way of a really good piece of sanctimony and god whalloping.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
clamboy



Posts: 299
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,10:43   

Louis, you have been far too gracious, but that is a fault to celebrate. Also, you have been educating - your chemistry posts are always enlightening, thank you.

RJFE, your posts make you appear arrogant, bombastic, disdainful, insulting, egotistical, vain, rude, base, conceited, ignorant, mean, crass, of an exaggerated self-opinion, insolent, presumptuous, disdainful, smug, snooty, snotty, stuck up, and all-around not nice at all. As a Christian professor I once worked with said, when speaking about the mega-church movement in the United States, "What ever happened to humility?"

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,11:25   

Oh, but he's lot lots of proverbs about humility! That counts, doesn't it? Even if he uses them to puff himself up and lord it over everyone?

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,11:27   

Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 12 2009,10:07)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 11 2009,20:18)
My sister is a believer also.  She loved milk, but she was diagnosed with "an allergy to milk".  Couldn't even drink acidophilus. After 20 years of this condition she decided she wanted to drink milk, so she started praying and got prayer in church.  She can drink milk now without getting a stomach ache.

RFJE, in all seriousness, I think it's extremely dangerous for your sister to defy medical advice simply to test her own faith this way. Doesn't your Bible teach you not to put your God to the test? You believe in Jesus; even he would not leap from the mountain with the faith that angels would rescue him.

You are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you, but please urge your sister to regularly see a doctor if she's going to continue to drink milk. Surely seeing a doctor doesn't threaten your faith if the doctor confirms that your sister is having no problems.

Anyway, it's my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong, people) that lactose intolerance is due to a dominant gene, so there is no "illness" about not being able to drink milk any more than having brown eyes is an "illness."

That is right Kristine.  Lactose tolerance is a loss of information about being lactose intolerant.  :p

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,11:30   

Quote (clamboy @ Feb. 12 2009,10:43)
Louis, you have been far too gracious, but that is a fault to celebrate. Also, you have been educating - your chemistry posts are always enlightening, thank you.

RJFE, your posts make you appear arrogant, bombastic, disdainful, insulting, egotistical, vain, rude, base, conceited, ignorant, mean, crass, of an exaggerated self-opinion, insolent, presumptuous, disdainful, smug, snooty, snotty, stuck up, and all-around not nice at all. As a Christian professor I once worked with said, when speaking about the mega-church movement in the United States, "What ever happened to humility?"

The Answer (without a lOLCat)

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,11:36   

Quote (clamboy @ Feb. 12 2009,16:43)
Louis, you have been far too gracious, but that is a fault to celebrate. Also, you have been educating - your chemistry posts are always enlightening, thank you.

[SNIP]

Cheers Clamboy, it's always nice to be appreciated. I'm always gracious until I don't have to be! ;)

I wish I had time to do properly educational posts on chemistry, but I don't. Usually when someone (like Denial, FTK etc) ignorantly whines about evolutionary biology they pick a topic which isn't my speciality. I know the general stuff and a few things in detail, but they very rarely get worried about chemistry. If they do, as with RFJE, they get stuck at a very very basic level. I've yet to find anyone (not a precommitted YEC or the like) who knows anything useful about chemistry and gets their knickers in a knot about abiogenesis. It's a seriously thorny problem to be sure, but it's hardly completely insoluble.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Bing



Posts: 144
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,12:05   

Quote (Nerull @ Feb. 12 2009,09:54)
Never seen a preacher heal someone who couldn't walk.I *have* seem them put people in wheelchairs and pretend to heal them. For the more honest ones, the person may actually have a disability, they just use a wheelchair for convenience, but they are capable of walking. I know people like this.The more dishonest ones use actors or have people sit in them who never use wheelchairs.People who can't really stand are ignored and not allowed into the 'healing' area.Go talk to these people sometime, instead of just relying on what the preacher tells you. They generally are not so enthusiastic about it afterward, since they know they've been played.

I'm sure everybody remembers when The Reverend Brother Doctor Doctor Dembski took his wife and autistic son to the Faith Healer and even he was ignored?

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,12:31   

Well, I feel for Dr Dr. It's actually such a rarity that it should be mentioned.

His son's condition is not easy to bear, and he's trying to deal with it anyway he can. On this matter, he has some of my sympathy.

But then at the end of the article, comes this:

Quote
we talked in hushed tones about how easily religion can be abused, in this case to exploit our family. What do we tell our children? I’m still working on that one.


Now I kinda feel like the hospital is mocking charity...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,12:54   

Quote
What do we tell our children? I’m still working on that one.


When I got exam questions like that I always thought there must be a trick.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2324
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,13:13   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 12 2009,00:05)
Wes: I wanted to use a portion of that quote as my signature when I created my account, but no matter how I cut it, I couldn't come out with anything satisfactory that would fit in the characters limitation. Augustine of Hippo was a great thinker!

Aquinas wrote on science and the Bible;

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches.  The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." - Thomas Aquinas, c.a. 1225 - 1274, Summa Theological (1273).

Closer to siggy length.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,13:38   

Thanks Doc, but still too long for a sig, and I prefer Augustin's phrasing  :D

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,13:46   

Oh, can I join the Louis Fan Club, too?

Do I get a poster?  Decoder ring?  Secret handshake?  Discount on lime Jell-O?

Is there a degrading and humiliating initiation?  (hope, hope!)



OK, I'm bored.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,14:18   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 12 2009,19:46)
Oh, can I join the Louis Fan Club, too?

Do I get a poster?  Decoder ring?  Secret handshake?  Discount on lime Jell-O?

Is there a degrading and humiliating initiation?  (hope, hope!)



OK, I'm bored.

No poster.
No decoder ring.
No secret handshake.
No discounted lime jello.

Degrading and humiliating initiation ritual?

Why step this way, sir! Arden and Deadman (plus squirrels) are greased and ready.

Louis

Tee hee, what Doc Bill doesn't know is there's no Louis fan club, the whole idea is fucking ridiculous. However Arden and Deadman have been getting bored with each other and need a new chum now that 'Ras has his "social disease". YouTube is standing by!

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,15:05   

what social disease?

you mean 'socially contracted', don't you?

I told your mother not to take off that paper bag.  dammit

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,15:26   

Pinnochio's idea of a sociable disease:




Termites!!


:)      :p

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,16:43   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 12 2009,21:05)
what social disease?

you mean 'socially contracted', don't you?

I told your mother not to take off that paper bag.  dammit

I told you to double bag. It's not my fault you don't take good advice.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,22:03   

Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 12 2009,10:07)
]
RFJE, in all seriousness, I think it's extremely dangerous for your sister to defy medical advice simply to test her own faith this way. Doesn't your Bible teach you not to put your God to the test? You believe in Jesus; even he would not leap from the mountain with the faith that angels would rescue him.

Anyway, it's my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong, people) that lactose intolerance is due to a dominant gene, so there is no "illness" about not being able to drink milk any more than having brown eyes is an "illness."

Hi Kristine,
First of all I wanted to apologize to you for my initial approach.  I was new and could have been more gentle.

Second, I agree that it would be dangerous if she was  ordered not to.  I don't think she had lactose intolerance, the MD told her she was allergic to milk.  She couldn't drink  acidophilous milk either.  I did not go with her to to the doctor (it was when she was 12 and she is now 46) and this is what she always told us the doctor said.

In any case, I don't think she saw it as putting God to the test.  She had a relationship with God and that was between her God.  In any case, she has been drinking milk for years with never a problem.

I have never known any Christians who would advocate such foolishness as to not seek medical help, or to follow a doctor's orders.  Anyone who would not bring their sick child to a doctor in the name of their faith, and then that child is hurt or dies, should be prosecuted.  There are extremists in every branch of life.

As for the case in Africa, you have to understand that they are a more spiritually based culture.  The idea that there is no spirit world to them to mock, just like atheists here mock Christians.  And I am talking about predominantly the village culture, (which is where I worked mainly) not urban upper class.

Some good missionary friends of ours were Presbyterian--great folks!  Presbyterians are not closed to miracles, but are very conservative in their views towards that subject.  They believe that was mainly confined to the apostles. But they had been in Africa for 10 years when we came.  They told us  they were praying with a man to receive Christ one time and the fetish rings(worn for spiritual protection) on his hands suddenly flew off his hands.  

If you read about the evangelistic crusades in Africa there are many miracles reported by people who are listening to the preaching--Africans in the bush--not a TV evangelist telecast.  

Finally, one last thought, this is getting long.  Jesus couldn't do any miracles in Nazareth, his childhood home because of their unbelief. (Matt. 14:53-58)  I think America is like Nazareth.  Many people are offended at anything that has anything to do with God (v.57) just like they were at Him.



[I]

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,22:08   

Left out some words up there....The idea that there is no spirit world would have caused them (Africans)to mock, just as atheists mock Christians here (in the states).

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2009,22:31   

RFJE, athiests don't usually mock anybody.  Christians have (historically) tended towards intolerance.  Your posts confirm this.  

Oh, and another thing. . .Atheism doesn't lead to moral anarchy (if such a thing is possible).  Atheists just don't accept, at face value, the codified moral judgements of a group of self-interested humans speaking in the guise of worthiness and piety.  Which is why atheists don't run around murdering other people and yet don't get all bent out of shape when the neighbor lady down the block gets an abortion.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,03:04   

Quote
Rather than initially deal with everything you bring up, I'm going to try to do something different from normal and get to the root of your issues. I'd be very grateful of you could answer a few questions for me:

1) For what purpose have you decided to post at AtBC? Are you on a conversion mission or have you come to discuss things in a more adult manner?

2) Precisely what "pernicious beliefs" do "we" spread through the schools and media?

3) Why are those "pernicious beliefs" pernicious? I.e. what damage do they do and how are they evil?

4) What about those "pernicious beliefs" makes them beliefs? I.e. presumably there are aspects of the real world upon which you and I could agree (more on this in a moment). The word belief at least implies that little or no reference to available evidence is made.

5) Is there any piece of well supported, evidence based science which you think we could agree upon? I'm trying to find some utterly uncontroversial, evidence based common ground  we can build a discussion from. At the moment, I think you're talking at people and just starting a nonsensical flame war.


Hi RFJE,

Any hope of having these answered?

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,03:06   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 12 2009,05:13)
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/    
Quote
A simple experiment

For this experiment, we need to find a deserving person who has had both of his legs amputated. For example, find a sincere, devout veteran of the Iraqi war, or a person who was involved in a tragic automobile accident.

Now create a prayer circle like the one created for Jeanna Giese. The job of this prayer circle is simple: pray to God to restore the amputated legs of this deserving person. I do not mean to pray for a team of renowned surgeons to somehow graft the legs of a cadaver onto the soldier, nor for a team of renowned scientists to craft mechanical legs for him. Pray that God spontaneously and miraculously restores the soldier's legs overnight, in the same way that God spontaneously and miraculously cured Jeanna Giese and Marilyn Hickey's mother.

If possible, get millions of people all over the planet to join the prayer circle and pray their most fervent prayers. Get millions of people praying in unison for a single miracle for this one deserving amputee. Then stand back and watch.

What is going to happen? Jesus clearly says that if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. He does not say it once -- he says it many times in many ways in the Bible.

And yet, even with millions of people praying, nothing will happen.

Ever see any limbs regrow in any of these villages?

No?

Ever wonder why?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,05:08   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 12 2009,23:03)
First of all I wanted to apologize to you for my initial approach.  I was new and could have been more gentle.

To late for hearts and flowers, ReFred. You've already indelibly established yourself as self-righteous ignoranus.  

(And you're still new.)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,05:22   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 13 2009,11:08)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 12 2009,23:03)
First of all I wanted to apologize to you for my initial approach.  I was new and could have been more gentle.

To late for hearts and flowers, ReFred. You've already indelibly established yourself as self-righteous ignoranus.  

(And you're still new.)

Surely no man can walk so long in the dark that they cannot be welcomed into the light?

;-)

Louis

P.S. I kill me sometimes, write that down. I love it so etc.

ETA: P.P.S. I also love RFJE's use of the word "gentle". The roughness, lack of gentleness, was not an issue. The blinding ignorance, lack of humility, rampant sanctimonious arrogance and repetition of fallacious bullshit was the issue. Be a rough as you like, just have the intellectual muscle to back it up.

--------------
Bye.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,05:24   

OT: is it just me, or is there something wrong with the bathroom wall/my browser?

Something like 4 or 5 posts just disapeared, and the whole thread seems to be moving in odd ways...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,05:25   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 13 2009,11:24)
OT: is it just me, or is there something wrong with the bathroom wall/my browser?

Something like 4 or 5 posts just disapeared, and the whole thread seems to be moving in odd ways...

Mine just did it too. The page turn bug went big willy style! Apparently adding 30 to the last number in the url turns the page. It worked for me btw. The Wall usually moves in mysterious ways!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,05:27   

Ok Louis, thanks, I will try...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,05:31   

I was flushing an older thread, which added comments early on to the BW. I've rebuilt the BW thread, so the pages should be back to normal.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,05:33   

It's working again now :)

Back to topic:

Quote
ETA: P.P.S. I also love RFJE's use of the word "gentle". The roughness, lack of gentleness, was not an issue. The blinding ignorance, lack of humility, rampant sanctimonious arrogance and repetition of fallacious bullshit was the issue. Be a rough as you like, just have the intellectual muscle to back it up.


Louis' right. Lookit: WE SHARE A COMMON ANCESTER WITH TEH MONKEYS, DUMBASS!!!!!1111!!one

See? That's not very "gentle", but if I am at least asked to bask it up, I can...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,08:10   

I, too, was struck by the use of the word 'gentle'. Gentle is how a professional boxer should be in a sparring bout with a 6-year-old. RFJE was more like an an angry 6-year-old thinking he could floor a professional boxer (no, I am not suggesting he was angry).

RFJE: you should have given some thought to the possibility that your knowledge is not complete and that professional biologists are likely to have more knowledge on the subject than you do. Your use of the word 'gentle' tells me that you are still not ready to accept this. You may be a power in the missionary community, but when it comes to biology, and particularly evolution, you must learn some humility. Something that comes across strongly in your comments is that although you use the word you have probably never really experienced it.

Biologists are extremely likely to have already thought of, considered and rejected any objections you are going to think of, not because they are evil or stupid, but because of the evidence that they are aware of and that you are not. Sure, it is always possible for an outsider to see something that has been missed but it is very unlikely.

So let's hear no more about being 'gentle' (I could beat you guys up if I really wanted to') but show some evidence of a willingness to accept the possibility that you might be wrong.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,09:01   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 12 2009,22:03)
As for the case in Africa, you have to understand that they are a more spiritually based culture.  The idea that there is no spirit world to them to mock, just like atheists here mock Christians.  
Some good missionary friends of ours were Presbyterian--great folks!  Presbyterians are not closed to miracles, but are very conservative in their views towards that subject.  They believe that was mainly confined to the apostles. But they had been in Africa for 10 years when we came.  They told us  they were praying with a man to receive Christ one time and the fetish rings(worn for spiritual protection) on his hands suddenly flew off his hands.  

The implication of your cute little story is that the indigenous beliefs were evil...the " native fetishes" flying off a man being prayed over -- surely this is the power of God overcoming evil, right?

I'm sorely tempted to say something very harsh here, but I won't. I'll just point out that such attitudes towards "the other" have resulted in the destruction of more native cultures than I can count.

If a technologically advanced group called your Christianity a  blood-cult evil for the outright imagery of human sacrifice and cannibalism, for instance...I'm sure that would meet your approval. Anecdotes about crucifixes flying because they required the worship of a sacrificed dead man tortured on sticks... that would obviously please you, right? You'd buy that in a second, wouldn't you?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,10:44   

RFJE,
I'm not going to question your personal experiences.  I had a friend a number of years back who was a pastor.  He made regular trips to India and would tell stories similar to yours.  I don't know how true they were, but even if I saw things like that myself, or even if I prayed and were healed myself, it wouldn't alter my understanding of the evolution of life on earth or the history of the universe.

Whether or not you believe in God, the devil, angels, etc has no bearing on the fact that the earth is billions of years old, life on earth has existed for a significant portion of that time, and over time has changed.  The ever growing weight of scientific evidence from astronomy, physics, geology, chemistry, biology all points to this same conclusion.

So, your stories about what God has done in your life and the lives of those around you are nice, but have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution and the science that supports it.  If you want to talk about science, please stick to the science.  We all have stories we could tell.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,10:57   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 12 2009,23:03)
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 12 2009,10:07)
]
RFJE, in all seriousness, I think it's extremely dangerous for your sister to defy medical advice simply to test her own faith this way. Doesn't your Bible teach you not to put your God to the test? You believe in Jesus; even he would not leap from the mountain with the faith that angels would rescue him.

Anyway, it's my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong, people) that lactose intolerance is due to a dominant gene, so there is no "illness" about not being able to drink milk any more than having brown eyes is an "illness."

Hi Kristine,
First of all I wanted to apologize to you for my initial approach.  I was new and could have been more gentle.

Second, I agree that it would be dangerous if she was  ordered not to.  I don't think she had lactose intolerance, the MD told her she was allergic to milk.  She couldn't drink  acidophilous milk either.  I did not go with her to to the doctor (it was when she was 12 and she is now 46) and this is what she always told us the doctor said.

In any case, I don't think she saw it as putting God to the test.  She had a relationship with God and that was between her God.  In any case, she has been drinking milk for years with never a problem.

I have never known any Christians who would advocate such foolishness as to not seek medical help, or to follow a doctor's orders.  Anyone who would not bring their sick child to a doctor in the name of their faith, and then that child is hurt or dies, should be prosecuted.  There are extremists in every branch of life.

As for the case in Africa, you have to understand that they are a more spiritually based culture.  The idea that there is no spirit world to them to mock, just like atheists here mock Christians.  And I am talking about predominantly the village culture, (which is where I worked mainly) not urban upper class.

Some good missionary friends of ours were Presbyterian--great folks!  Presbyterians are not closed to miracles, but are very conservative in their views towards that subject.  They believe that was mainly confined to the apostles. But they had been in Africa for 10 years when we came.  They told us  they were praying with a man to receive Christ one time and the fetish rings(worn for spiritual protection) on his hands suddenly flew off his hands.  

If you read about the evangelistic crusades in Africa there are many miracles reported by people who are listening to the preaching--Africans in the bush--not a TV evangelist telecast.  

Finally, one last thought, this is getting long.  Jesus couldn't do any miracles in Nazareth, his childhood home because of their unbelief. (Matt. 14:53-58)  I think America is like Nazareth.  Many people are offended at anything that has anything to do with God (v.57) just like they were at Him.



[I]

Spiritual isn't the right word. Superstitious might fit better. And missionaries have been taking advantage of them for ages. Do you think it an accomplishment to convert these people, when they also believe the catholic church when they tell them condoms are evil and cause aids, and that the little girl down the street is a witch? Do you feel proud, every time they kill one?

They don't need preaching, they need education. They need proper schools, and teachers. But you aren't interested in helping people - you just want more souls.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,11:42   

Quote (ppb @ Feb. 13 2009,16:44)
[SNIP]

We all have stories we could tell.

This one time...

{looks around}

Is there anyone of a nervous disposition here?

Actually, forget it. I think that gagging order still applies.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,12:02   

Your stories remind me of "Utrota varenda jävel" by Sven Lindqvist. Available in an english translation named "Exterminate All the Brutes". You should not feel flattered by this.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,12:38   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 13 2009,09:01)
 If a technologically advanced group called your Christianity a  blood-cult evil for the outright imagery of human sacrifice and cannibalism, for instance...I'm sure that would meet your approval. Anecdotes about crucifixes flying because they required the worship of a sacrificed dead man tortured on sticks... that would obviously please you, right? You'd buy that in a second, wouldn't you?

Who was it who suggested that if Jesus had lived in the 20th century, Christians would all be wearing necklaces with little electric chairs hanging from them?

--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,14:30   

Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 13 2009,12:38)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 13 2009,09:01)
 If a technologically advanced group called your Christianity a  blood-cult evil for the outright imagery of human sacrifice and cannibalism, for instance...I'm sure that would meet your approval. Anecdotes about crucifixes flying because they required the worship of a sacrificed dead man tortured on sticks... that would obviously please you, right? You'd buy that in a second, wouldn't you?

Who was it who suggested that if Jesus had lived in the 20th century, Christians would all be wearing necklaces with little electric chairs hanging from them?

"If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses." ~ Lenny Bruce

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,15:35   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 13 2009,14:30)
 
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 13 2009,12:38)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 13 2009,09:01)
 If a technologically advanced group called your Christianity a  blood-cult evil for the outright imagery of human sacrifice and cannibalism, for instance...I'm sure that would meet your approval. Anecdotes about crucifixes flying because they required the worship of a sacrificed dead man tortured on sticks... that would obviously please you, right? You'd buy that in a second, wouldn't you?

Who was it who suggested that if Jesus had lived in the 20th century, Christians would all be wearing necklaces with little electric chairs hanging from them?

"If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses." ~ Lenny Bruce

The question was partly rhetorical.  I think Bruce may have missed something, though; Catholics wear not just crosses, but crucifixes.  That would mean that if Jesus had been executed recently, the little electric chairs sported by Catholic schoolkids would have little fried guys in them.

--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,15:39   

Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 13 2009,13:38)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 13 2009,09:01)
 If a technologically advanced group called your Christianity a  blood-cult evil for the outright imagery of human sacrifice and cannibalism, for instance...I'm sure that would meet your approval. Anecdotes about crucifixes flying because they required the worship of a sacrificed dead man tortured on sticks... that would obviously please you, right? You'd buy that in a second, wouldn't you?

Who was it who suggested that if Jesus had lived in the 20th century, Christians would all be wearing necklaces with little electric chairs hanging from them?

Bill Hicks said something related: (paraphrased)

"Walking up to Jackie Kennedy and showing her the rifle you wear around your neck."

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,17:59   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 12 2009,20:03)

In any case, I don't think she saw it as putting God to the test.  She had a relationship with God and that was between her God.  In any case, she has been drinking milk for years with never a problem.

Have you ever wondered why your God would cure your sisters milk allergy, yet not cure a single* rabies victim after the onset of neurological symptoms ? Of all the thousands of people who die horrible deaths every year, are none more deserving of help than allowing your sister to drink milk ?
Quote

As for the case in Africa, you have to understand that they are a more spiritually based culture.  The idea that there is no spirit world to them to mock, just like atheists here mock Christians.  And I am talking about predominantly the village culture, (which is where I worked mainly) not urban upper class.

If you accept these anecdotal claims of prayer based miracles, why would you not also accept the same peoples claims of witchcraft ? For example, do you believe that wizards can steal ones penis by magic ? How about the evil eye ?

Have you ever noticed that frequency of supernatural events has a direct correlation to the anecdotal nature of the evidence and the prevalence of superstition in the population ?

* In the interest of accuracy, there are a handful of reports of people surviving clinical rabies, e.g. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5350a1.htm However, in comparison to the millions of victims in human history, it is very a small number indeed.

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,18:02   

Quote (Reed @ Feb. 13 2009,18:59)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 12 2009,20:03)

In any case, I don't think she saw it as putting God to the test.  She had a relationship with God and that was between her God.  In any case, she has been drinking milk for years with never a problem.

Have you ever wondered why your God would cure your sisters milk allergy, yet not cure a single* rabies victim after the onset of neurological symptoms ? Of all the thousands of people who die horrible deaths every year, are none more deserving of help than allowing your sister to drink milk ?
Quote

As for the case in Africa, you have to understand that they are a more spiritually based culture.  The idea that there is no spirit world to them to mock, just like atheists here mock Christians.  And I am talking about predominantly the village culture, (which is where I worked mainly) not urban upper class.

If you accept these anecdotal claims of prayer based miracles, why would you not also accept the same peoples claims of witchcraft ? For example, do you believe that wizards can steal ones penis by magic ? How about the evil eye ?

Have you ever noticed that frequency of supernatural events has a direct correlation to the anecdotal nature of the evidence and the prevalence of superstition in the population ?

* In the interest of accuracy, there are a handful of reports of people surviving clinical rabies, e.g. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5350a1.htm However, in comparison to the millions of victims in human history, it is very a small number indeed.

And don't forget pre-antibiotic tetanus.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,18:41   

Quote
* In the interest of accuracy, there are a handful of reports of people surviving clinical rabies
Of course at the time they were praying for death, and God healed them just to piss 'em off.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,21:15   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 13 2009,08:10)
I, too, was struck by the use of the word 'gentle'. Gentle is how a professional boxer should be in a sparring bout with a 6-year-old. RFJE was more like an an angry 6-year-old thinking he could floor a professional boxer (no, I am not suggesting he was angry).

RFJE: you should have given some thought to the possibility that your knowledge is not complete and that professional biologists are likely to have more knowledge on the subject than you do. Your use of the word 'gentle' tells me that you are still not ready to accept this. You may be a power in the missionary community, but when it comes to biology, and particularly evolution, you must learn some humility. Something that comes across strongly in your comments is that although you use the word you have probably never really experienced it.

Biologists are extremely likely to have already thought of, considered and rejected any objections you are going to think of, not because they are evil or stupid, but because of the evidence that they are aware of and that you are not. Sure, it is always possible for an outsider to see something that has been missed but it is very unlikely.

So let's hear no more about being 'gentle' (I could beat you guys up if I really wanted to') but show some evidence of a willingness to accept the possibility that you might be wrong.

Richard,
First of all, I think I have apologized twice now.  Once to everyone, once to Kristeen.  Perhaps you did not see them.  When I used the term gentle, I was speaking of the way I entered into this website.  I had never been here before.  I did not realize this website was full of biologists and chemists and MDs.

I fully respect knowledge.  I do not think scientists or biologists, or MD's are evil (by the way, my doctor is a Christian, and you see it). Their knowledge has brought alot of good things into the world.  

Nor do I think I can beat any of them up figuratively of course.  If I have given you that impression I apologize.  Of course I do believe I can offer evidence that the natural world is not all there is.  I can not prove it, and from your point of view it is subjective, and you do not know me personally, so there is a natural wall built against anything I say.  I realize this is normal, and I am use to it.

I also realize I'm on your territory.  This is an evolutionary website.  I am viewed as a hostile trespasser by some I realize.  A religious fanatic and kook by others. So I do thank those who are over those website that they have not kicked me off.

Lastly, this has been good for me, though the name calling, and ridicule is never fun.  But I have learned from it.  Actually, right now I'm reading about the Hadean geologic age from evolutionary perspective.  I plan to study the entire geologic time scale and the lunar also.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2324
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,22:08   

When I was a field ethnographer (my dissertation in fact), I made it a incontrovertible rule to never have anything to do with the asshole missionaries that occasionally breezed through villages where I worked and lived.  I also did my best to avoid any entanglement with the magical/spiritualistic beliefs of my friends and neighbors. I was working on the very practical aspects of indigenous knowledge about geomineralogy by potters and the associated linguistics of general populations.

Years later, I did return to some of the magico-religious issues in the villages I had lived in. Even later, I was a professor of medicine in psychiatry.

This is just background to the following observations;

Most disease is self-limited.

Most people have a clear idea from personal experience what a dead person looks, and behaves like (they are very still until they stink).

People will believe anything if it doesn't cost much, and has an occasional payback (food, warmth, sex).

We are a "self programing machine" in which thinking changes how we think by changing how our brains are organized physically and chemically. Much of this happens in childhood.

I, like a number of physicists who irritate the ..., well they irritate me, have been edging toward a sense that Plato was correct; our "reality" is a poor construct of a "real True™" reality. However, the very notion of science, and the supremacy of repeatable observation and hypothesis testing surpasses Plato and the rest of his Greek BFF.

As we proceed, more of the fantastic fear filled Phantasms are disposed of finally.  (you more clever people should rewrite this)

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,22:23   

I read the rest of your posts, after Richard Simons.  You can let "my" thread  go to the bottom.

I never got this point out as I was trying to absorb all your rebukes, insults and accusations.

The whole crux is that the scientists were scientists until they entered into o-r-i-g-i-n-s.  Not all of them thank God.
Some still believe the Psalms which say "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament his handywork."

Yes they were still very intelligent, very educated, very enlightened perceptors. They still brought us wonderful breakthroughs and understanding of the natural  world. But they became anti-apostles, and anti-prophets and anti-christs (not the anti-christ, the scriptures teach there are anti-christs and THE anti-christ). Telling us there was no Adam and Eve, throwing out the Bible as a fable book.  

Do we need any proof of this?  Just look in the prior pages.  Mocking and railing against the One who said "Father forgive them, they know not what they do."  Who told Peter as they took him to Pontius Pilate "Put your sword away, for could I not ask my father for twelve legions of angels." But instead he went to the cross to be ransom for our sin.

And wouldn't some of you have been right there.  Well when you said  those things about Him directly you were---under His cross, saying just like the Pharisees, "If he is the son of God, let him come down from the cross and save himself."  ---If he is the son of God let him grow limbs on amputees.

"Woe to those who call light darkness, and darkness light."

Bottom line, if our common ancestor is not Adam and Eve then there is no sin, nor inherited sin nature in man, nor any need for redemption by Christ's blood.  So just live it up guys.  Everything's just wonderful.  This life is the only one.  But count me out.

"For this know, that in the last days perilous times shall come.  For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, no self control, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, HEADY, HIGHMINDED, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God...EVER LEARNING AND NEVER ABLE TO COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH...." II Tim. 3:1-4,7

But you, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even TO THE TIME OF THE END: MANY SHALL RUN HERE AND THERE AND KNOWLEDGE SHALL BE INCREASED.  Daniel 12:4

There's alot more, but you won't believe what I just wrote.  But i believe one or two will.  The rest of you go do what you do.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,22:50   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 13 2009,23:23)
I read the rest of your posts, after Richard Simons.  You can let "my" thread  go to the bottom.

I never got this point out as I was trying to absorb all your rebukes, insults and accusations.

The whole crux is that the scientists were scientists until they entered into o-r-i-g-i-n-s.  Not all of them thank God.
Some still believe the Psalms which say "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament his handywork."

Yes they were still very intelligent, very educated, very enlightened perceptors. They still brought us wonderful breakthroughs and understanding of the natural  world. But they became anti-apostles, and anti-prophets and anti-christs (not the anti-christ, the scriptures teach there are anti-christs and THE anti-christ). Telling us there was no Adam and Eve, throwing out the Bible as a fable book.  

Do we need any proof of this?  Just look in the prior pages.  Mocking and railing against the One who said "Father forgive them, they know not what they do."  Who told Peter as they took him to Pontius Pilate "Put your sword away, for could I not ask my father for twelve legions of angels." But instead he went to the cross to be ransom for our sin.

And wouldn't some of you have been right there.  Well when you said  those things about Him directly you were---under His cross, saying just like the Pharisees, "If he is the son of God, let him come down from the cross and save himself."  ---If he is the son of God let him grow limbs on amputees.

"Woe to those who call light darkness, and darkness light."

Bottom line, if our common ancestor is not Adam and Eve then there is no sin, nor inherited sin nature in man, nor any need for redemption by Christ's blood.  So just live it up guys.  Everything's just wonderful.  This life is the only one.  But count me out.

"For this know, that in the last days perilous times shall come.  For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, no self control, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, HEADY, HIGHMINDED, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God...EVER LEARNING AND NEVER ABLE TO COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH...." II Tim. 3:1-4,7

But you, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even TO THE TIME OF THE END: MANY SHALL RUN HERE AND THERE AND KNOWLEDGE SHALL BE INCREASED.  Daniel 12:4

There's alot more, but you won't believe what I just wrote.  But i believe one or two will.  The rest of you go do what you do.

You're drunk. Go sleep it off.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2324
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,22:59   

Bugger off you creato-bot.

Your crap reading of scripture has per Romans 2: 23.  Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 24.  For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,23:37   

Quote
Bottom line, if our common ancestor is not Adam and Eve then there is no sin, nor inherited sin nature in man, nor any need for redemption by Christ's blood.


Finally, something I agree with.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,23:48   

Seriously, I admittedly never understand this about Christians. Half the time they're whipping themselves for being inherently bad, and the other half they're enslaving themselves to the memory of a guy who had a bad weekend 2000 years ago. Let it go already and live your own life for a change.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,23:49   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 13 2009,22:23)
Yes they were still very intelligent, very educated, very enlightened perceptors. They still brought us wonderful breakthroughs and understanding of the natural  world. But they became anti-apostles, and anti-prophets and anti-christs (not the anti-christ, the scriptures teach there are anti-christs and THE anti-christ). Telling us there was no Adam and Eve, throwing out the Bible as a fable book.
 
I think most people here are not what could reasonably be called anti-christs. Most Christians who contribute here, I'm sure, do not find that their faith is being attacked. However, there are many anti-apostles here. When Christians (they are the most frequent transgressors) try to push their religious views there is the tendency to push back against those who have decided that it is their aim in life to become apostles for their faith. What right do you have to invade my life and tell me that my views are wrong? If you wish to provide evidence to support your views, that would be a little more acceptable but there never is any. It always comes down to quoting passages from your mythology, or coming out with threats of what will happen in the afterlife.

Tell me, why should I regard the Bible as any more or less a fable than the Illiad? Both have parts that are obviously factual, or close to factual, and other parts clearly pure mythology.
 
Quote
Do we need any proof of this?  Just look in the prior pages.  Mocking and railing against the One who said "Father forgive them, they know not what they do."
 
I think most of the commentators here have not been railing against Jesus, but against you.
 
Quote

Bottom line, if our common ancestor is not Adam and Eve then there is no sin, nor inherited sin nature in man, nor any need for redemption by Christ's blood.  So just live it up guys.  Everything's just wonderful.  This life is the only one.  But count me out.

I've never understood this desire by some Christians to wallow in sin, and why something someone did hundreds of generations ago should condemn me. When I was a child this was one of the things that struck me as being particularly ridiculous and even nasty about Christianity.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,00:01   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 13 2009,20:23)
And wouldn't some of you have been right there.  Well when you said  those things about Him directly you were---under His cross, saying just like the Pharisees, "If he is the son of God, let him come down from the cross and save himself."  ---If he is the son of God let him grow limbs on amputees.

You are the one who offered supposedly miraculous cures as an argument for belief in god. We just attempted to point out the implications of this claim.

I'm not asking your god to show his power. I'm asking you how you reconcile your assertion that god cured your sisters allergy to milk with the apparent fact that he never cures rabies victims.

As for me, I defer to the gospel of Waits:
 
Quote (Tom Waits @ heartattack, vine)
don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just god when he's drunk

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,04:21   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 13 2009,21:15)
I did not realize this website was full of biologists and chemists and MDs.
No, you thought it was full of uninformed people that you could easily sway with unsupported claims that you've practiced delivering before.  
   
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 13 2009,21:15)
I plan to study the entire geologic time scale and the lunar also.

Come into my parlor. If you can manage that any better than you did with biochem, I'd be real surprised.
   
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 13 2009,22:23)
The whole crux is that the scientists were scientists until they entered into o-r-i-g-i-n-s.  Not all of them thank God.

So, scientists are scientists -- until they deal with things YOU disagree with. Here's a quote for you; " It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way."( Prov 19:2 )

Just because YOU are a literalist and insist on a simplistic child-like view of the Bible, don't insist that all others have to as well. Studying "origins" isn't FORBIDDEN by any Bible *I* know of -- it's just you that says it's somehow bad -- for all YOU know, it may be a bad thing NOT to study origins.  

Yet, you already have a preconceived notion of "truth" that you then spew all over others and ask them to join you in your ignorance. No thanks.
   
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 13 2009,22:23)
Yes they were still very intelligent, very educated, very enlightened perceptors. They still brought us wonderful breakthroughs and understanding of the natural  world. But they became anti-apostles, and anti-prophets and anti-christs... Telling us there was no Adam and Eve, throwing out the Bible as a fable book.  
Uh...I have no evidence that Adam and Eve were anything BUT metaphors that YOU take as absolute truth. Again, that simplistic, childlike view of religion that makes a mockery of it.

   
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 13 2009,22:23)
Do we need any proof of this?  Just look in the prior pages.  Mocking and railing against the One who said "Father forgive them, they know not what they do."  

As others have already mentioned...making fun of YOU is not quite the same as making fun of Jesus...or are you so deluded as to confuse the two?  

   
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 13 2009,22:23)
And wouldn't some of you have been right there.  Well when you said  those things about Him directly you were---under His cross, saying just like the Pharisees, "If he is the son of God, let him come down from the cross and save himself."
Ah, thanks. People disagree with YOU and your foolish ideas, so you pretend they're "Pharisees" to make yourself feel better. I'm sure God approves of your judgements and that fat friggin' mote in your eye.

At the very least, people were justified in mocking YOU first, since you chose to come here and start yapping  about things you were clearly misinformed about.    
   
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 13 2009,22:23)
There's alot more, but you won't believe what I just wrote.  But i believe one or two will.  

Want to bet? You're assuming here -- and that's a bad assumption to make.

You're a standard fanatic, RFJE , no different than many others that have been here before. You could be any religion, really, any other flavor of fundamentalist/ literalist.  

The anti-evolution, anti-science tune is just the same. What's funny is that you probably think it's different. Nah.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,04:32   

RFJE,

Hi there. Any chance you could answer the questions I've asked you please? They're just five simple questions, and to be blunt whilst I've been less than fulsomely warm, I have tried to deal with your chemical queries openly, honestly and accurately, and I haven't mocked or insulted you greatly (just yet!).

If you are so thin skinned that the, relatively mild btw, comments of others bother you, then just ignore them and deal with me. Here are those questions again:

Quote
Rather than initially deal with everything you bring up, I'm going to try to do something different from normal and get to the root of your issues. I'd be very grateful of you could answer a few questions for me:

1) For what purpose have you decided to post at AtBC? Are you on a conversion mission or have you come to discuss things in a more adult manner?

2) Precisely what "pernicious beliefs" do "we" spread through the schools and media?

3) Why are those "pernicious beliefs" pernicious? I.e. what damage do they do and how are they evil?

4) What about those "pernicious beliefs" makes them beliefs? I.e. presumably there are aspects of the real world upon which you and I could agree (more on this in a moment). The word belief at least implies that little or no reference to available evidence is made.

5) Is there any piece of well supported, evidence based science which you think we could agree upon? I'm trying to find some utterly uncontroversial, evidence based common ground  we can build a discussion from. At the moment, I think you're talking at people and just starting a nonsensical flame war.


Just remember YOU came HERE. This isn't an echo chamber, dissenting ideas are more than welcome, but they must be able to stand in the face of criticism. Everyone is subject to this, me included. You need to bring evidence to support your ideas, and when your ideas are contradicted by the evidence, abandon them, or at least shelve them until evidence comes in.

Ignore all the foregoing stuff, start from scratch, calmly and honestly and simply answer those 5 questions. They are not traps, they are not designed to wrong foot you, they are points to build a discussion from.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,06:33   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 14 2009,04:21)
 
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 13 2009,22:23)
Do we need any proof of this?  Just look in the prior pages.  Mocking and railing against the One who said "Father forgive them, they know not what they do."  

As others have already mentioned...making fun of YOU is not quite the same as making fun of Jesus...or are you so deluded as to confuse the two?  

Don't forget that Christians are constantly admonished to be more Christ-like.  This is all part of RFJE's schtick.  He comes in here on a mission trip with his warped, childish science as the tool he thinks he will use to save our souls.  

When he discovers that people here are actually smarter than him when it comes to science, he throws his arms dramatically out to the side, lolls his head onto his shoulder, rolls his eyes sky-ward and plaintively cries "Oh father, see how they persecute me, your humble (oh, so humble) servant! I came here with great (oh, so great) humility to share your mercy and salvation with them and these neo-Romans have treated me just as their ancestors treated you!  I know I have reached one or two of them, but forgive them if they don't proclaim to the world what I have laid on their hearts.  For their faith is not yet as strong or as humble (did I mention my great humility?) as mine!"

On Sunday, he'll send a prayer of thanksgiving up to the pastor to read in front of the congregation thanking the Lord for allowing him to touch the hearts of evilutionists.  Then he'll regale a few of his friends with tales of his triumph around the donut table in the annex before Sunday school.

Hey RFJE, how is the view from up there?



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,06:44   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 14 2009,13:33)
On Sunday, he'll send a prayer of thanksgiving up to the pastor to read in front of the congregation thanking the Lord for allowing him to touch the hearts of evilutionists.  Then he'll regale a few of his friends with tales of his triumph around the donut table in the annex before Sunday school.

You forgot to add: he'll probably touch himself as well...

Sorry, I don't take kindly to pious junk anymore!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5452
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,06:57   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 13 2009,23:23)
"Woe to those who call light darkness, and darkness light."

Oh, the irony.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,07:02   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 13 2009,22:59)
Bugger off you creato-bot.

Your crap reading of scripture has per Romans 2: 23.  Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 24.  For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

In Romans , especially  the first 8 chapters you will find that:

1) All have broken the law. All have sinned. Sin brings death (separation from God). Rom 3:23, Rom 6:23

The scripture you have quoted is addressed to the Jews who thought that keeping was the means of salvation (v17) , but can truly be applied to some in the current day church.

I do not make my boast in the "the law."  I do not believe you must keep a bunch of rules. The law is good, but the law kills.  

"For I was alive without the law once (Paul is speaking of before he had known the law), but when the commandment came, sin came alive in me, and I died." Romans 7:9

The scripture teaches that the purpose of the law was to define sin. "...for by the law is the knowledge of sin." Rom 3:20  But it had no power to REMOVE the sin nature of man, it was intended by God to show us our need for help in the area of morality.

"For we know the law is spiritual, but I am carnal (subject to fleshly appetites), sold under sin.  For that which I do I allow not: for what I would do, that I do not, but what I hate, that I do.  If then I do that which I would not, I consent to the law that it is good." Rom.7:14,15

This passage goes on to explain how the sin nature works in us in everyday experience.   And he talking to Christian Jews in Rome who had been raised to keep the law.  

All Christians go through this struggle.  This passage is not defeatism.  Might as well sin. The next chapter Rom 8 gives the gospel of Christ which is the power which breaks the power of sin.

The power of the sin is the law.  The scriptures clearly teach this, and so there is a bondage that comes through sin.  The law is the word of God and so the power of sin is ever stronger in us who know the law (the moral law ie. the ten commandments)

Christ died on the cross to break the bondage and the condemnation.  But if he did not rise again, then death would have still have reigned in us.  This subject is very legal, that is part of the reason we need to ACCEPT what God did by faith, and then begin to learn what it is He did do for us.  

This is what it means to "accept Christ."  We are accepting, not rejecting what he did do for us, and it is acknowledging our need for it.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,07:13   

Ok, another "preacher".

Did this guy really deserve his own thread?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,07:25   

Probably not, but it kept the Wall clean and helped the Expelled thread get back on topic.

I personally favour giving people such as RFJE their own threads, just as I favour giving trolls their own threads to be restricted to (not that RFJE is necessarily a troll). On this I've changed my mind. I was, in the past, an advocate of the surgical removal of morons/trolls/the deluded. I now only advocate this in direst need IF it is not possible for them to have a quarantined thread all to their own. Let them, and anyone who wants to respond to them, play in their own dedicated play park.

Opinions may differ on the matter. As I've said before, the only genuinely controversial thing regarding religion and creationism etc is how to deal with their advocates.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,07:29   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 14 2009,13:02)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 13 2009,22:59)
Bugger off you creato-bot.

Your crap reading of scripture has per Romans 2: 23.  Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 24.  For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

In Romans , especially  the first 8 chapters you will find that:

1) All have broken the law. All have sinned. Sin brings death (separation from God). Rom 3:23, Rom 6:23

[SNIP God walloping]

RFJE,

Hello again. It seems that you are keen to ignore simple questions in favour of giving lengthy biblical rants. I humbly suggest this is not the best way to communicate with this audience. Is there any chance you could answer my simple questions please? I've asked very nicely several times now. What is stopping you?

Here they are again:

Quote
Rather than initially deal with everything you bring up, I'm going to try to do something different from normal and get to the root of your issues. I'd be very grateful of you could answer a few questions for me:

1) For what purpose have you decided to post at AtBC? Are you on a conversion mission or have you come to discuss things in a more adult manner?

2) Precisely what "pernicious beliefs" do "we" spread through the schools and media?

3) Why are those "pernicious beliefs" pernicious? I.e. what damage do they do and how are they evil?

4) What about those "pernicious beliefs" makes them beliefs? I.e. presumably there are aspects of the real world upon which you and I could agree (more on this in a moment). The word belief at least implies that little or no reference to available evidence is made.

5) Is there any piece of well supported, evidence based science which you think we could agree upon? I'm trying to find some utterly uncontroversial, evidence based common ground  we can build a discussion from. At the moment, I think you're talking at people and just starting a nonsensical flame war.


Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,07:52   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 14 2009,07:02)
All have broken the law. All have sinned. Sin brings death



--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,08:07   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 14 2009,06:44)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 14 2009,13:33)
On Sunday, he'll send a prayer of thanksgiving up to the pastor to read in front of the congregation thanking the Lord for allowing him to touch the hearts of evilutionists.  Then he'll regale a few of his friends with tales of his triumph around the donut table in the annex before Sunday school.

You forgot to add: he'll probably touch himself as well...



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5452
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,08:12   

Let me reiterate, RFJE, that if you want to talk Science, this is a great place to do it.

If you want to proselytize, you need to do it elsewhere.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,08:25   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 14 2009,14:07)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 14 2009,06:44)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 14 2009,13:33)
On Sunday, he'll send a prayer of thanksgiving up to the pastor to read in front of the congregation thanking the Lord for allowing him to touch the hearts of evilutionists.  Then he'll regale a few of his friends with tales of his triumph around the donut table in the annex before Sunday school.

You forgot to add: he'll probably touch himself as well...


What? AGAIN? Ceiling cat needs to find better things to do.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,09:32   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 14 2009,08:12)
Let me reiterate, RFJE, that if you want to talk Science, this is a great place to do it.

If you want to proselytize, you need to do it elsewhere.

Scientific investigation--is it not based on observation. I offered you evidence of the innate nature of man's individuality to give evidence for the human spirit.  I wrote that one to Louis.  It's all in the chemistry of the brain you say--even ethical judgement or conscience.  If we're just chemicals trying to survive and promote the species why is there guilt?  You say it's the evil religionists' fault.

Okay-- so I offered you evidence of things I have observed that are outside the explanation of chemistry or any natural explanation, because they were events--but you did not believe me.

Okay--so I offered you evidence of only a small example of prophecy--you tell me I am trying to convert you.

Okay--so I offer you something that I believe is a misunderstanding by alot of people--the law.  And with it the evidence of our sinful nature.  And yes it is a very sexual nature.   You guys tell me I shouldn't wallow in sin--and again you tell me not to proselytize.

The bottom line is that we are on two different wavelengths.  I do not disagree the facts in chemistry or biology.  I disagree with you in the subject of origins.

Then when one of your own scientists who is trained by evolutionary science, and is highly credentialed, turns  and says, "You guys, there's too many problems with this theory and I really think there is some design implications here in this thing I'm studying--then suddenly--he is no longer a scientist.  SO let's take away his funding, his status in the community, and then ridicule him if he is funded by Christians who believe in a designer.

I had some more natural science for you which at least you would have seen as evolutionary, but I hit the wrong button and lost it.  I'll redo it.

And Louis I will answer your questions--and you do LIKE to do this it's not just the quarantine effect, or you wouldn't put so much energy into it.

I have to take my son to a game.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,09:38   

Wow! First, that sounds like a perfect FTK impression (family excuse to runa away included).

Second, do you realise that by the very way you came here, you look like a pedophile outside a school?

"Here, scientist, lookit what I've got for you, science stuff"

Then it all goes manky when you introduce us to your "little friend"...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,10:04   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 14 2009,15:32)
[SNIP crapola]

And Louis I will answer your questions--and you do LIKE to do this it's not just the quarantine effect, or you wouldn't put so much energy into it.

[SNIP]

Please don't impute motives to me.

The reason I set up a thread for you, and engaged you reasonably politely, is because I think everyone deserves a fair crack of the whip. I enjoy rational debate with intellectually honest, intelligent people, I make no secret of that. I don't enjoy coddling intellectually dishonest morons. It remains to be seen which camp you'll fall into.

We'll get to the "all just chemistry" stuff later. Like I've said before, if you don't understand the basics, and I think you've demonstrated thus far that you don't, what is the point of trying to get you to understand things that are vastly more complicated?

Answer the questions.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,10:05   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 14 2009,09:32)
I offered you evidence of the innate nature of man's individuality to give evidence for the human spirit.  I wrote that one to Louis.  It's all in the chemistry of the brain you say--even ethical judgement or conscience.  If we're just chemicals trying to survive and promote the species why is there guilt?  You say it's the evil religionists' fault.

"Innate nature of man's individuality" = evidence of spirit? WTF? Lots of other animals show individuality, do they all have "spirit?" And here, do you mean anima or soul, or that they're just rambunctious??

And who the hell said that guilt is the "fault" of religionists? Have you ever read anything on ethology? anything at all?
 
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 14 2009,09:32)
Okay-- so I offered you evidence of things I have observed that are outside the explanation of chemistry or any natural explanation, because they were events--but you did not believe me.
Of course not, you offered unattributed anecdote without verification or verifiability.
 
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 14 2009,09:32)
Okay--so I offered you evidence of only a small example of prophecy--you tell me I am trying to convert you.
Where did you offer instances of prophecy? I mean something verifiably datable prior to the event in question? Something not a post-hoc claim and not swimming in ambiguity?
 
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 14 2009,09:32)
Okay--so I offer you something that I believe is a misunderstanding by alot of people--the law.  And with it the evidence of our sinful nature.  And yes it is a very sexual nature.   You guys tell me I shouldn't wallow in sin--and again you tell me not to proselytize.

Why are laws evidence of anything concerning sin? And why is our "sinfulness" somehow "of a sexual nature" to you? And no, don't proselytize -- it's not evidence or even meaningful in light of your initial claims. It's simply annoying and irrelevant.
 
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 14 2009,09:32)
The bottom line is that we are on two different wavelengths.  I do not disagree the facts in chemistry or biology.  I disagree with you in the subject of origins.Then when one of your own scientists who is trained by evolutionary science, and is highly credentialed, turns  and says, "You guys, there's too many problems with this theory and I really think there is some design implications here in this thing I'm studying--then suddenly--he is no longer a scientist.  SO let's take away his funding, his status in the community, and then ridicule him if he is funded by Christians who believe in a designer.
Who took away someone's funding for what you just stated? Got examples? Let's hear it. And why are you relying on arguments from authority and other fallacies? Won't YOUR evidence actually stand up to scrutiny?
 
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 14 2009,09:32)
I had some more natural science for you which at least you would have seen as evolutionary, but I hit the wrong button and lost it.  I'll redo it.
And Louis I will answer your questions--and you do LIKE to do this it's not just the quarantine effect, or you wouldn't put so much energy into it.

I have to take my son to a game.

Ah, now THERE ya go...bring on the data and evidence. That's what works here -- not fallacies and preaching.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,10:10   

Evolution Weekend: Over 11,000 Christian clergy in the USA say RFJE's dichotomy is false.

Quote

2009 Evolution Weekend

This year represents the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin (12 February 1809) and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his seminal work On the Origin of Species in 1859. This backdrop provides a rich opportunity to demonstrate that religion and science have much to offer one another. Please join us and congregations all around the world iin celebrating Evolution Weekend 2009!

13 -15 February 2009 -- Evolution Weekend

Evolution Weekend is an opportunity for serious discussion and reflection on the relationship between religion and science. One important goal is to elevate the quality of the discussion on this critical topic - to move beyond sound bites. A second critical goal is to demonstrate that religious people from many faiths and locations understand that evolution is sound science and poses no problems for their faith. Finally, as with The Clergy Letter itself, which has now been signed by more than 11,000 members of the Christian clergy in the United States, Evolution Weekend makes it clear that those claiming that people must choose between religion and science are creating a false dichotomy.

Through sermons, discussion groups, meaningful conversations and seminars, the leaders listed below will show that religion and science are not adversaries.  


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,10:26   

I know, don't feed the troll.  Satan is making me do this!

Hey, Mayberry RFD, you wrote:


Quote
Then when one of your own scientists who is trained by evolutionary science, and is highly credentialed, turns  and says, "You guys, there's too many problems with this theory and I really think there is some design implications here in this thing I'm studying--then suddenly--he is no longer a scientist.  SO let's take away his funding, his status in the community, and then ridicule him if he is funded by Christians who believe in a designer.


Who are you referring to?

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5452
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,10:40   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 14 2009,11:04)
I enjoy rational debate with intellectually honest, intelligent people, I make no secret of that. I don't enjoy coddling intellectually dishonest morons. It remains to be seen which camp you'll fall into.

With all due respect, my friend, no.

It doesn't.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,11:27   

Quote
Then when one of your own scientists who is trained by evolutionary science, and is highly credentialed, turns  and says, "You guys, there's too many problems with this theory and I really think there is some design implications here in this thing I'm studying--then suddenly--he is no longer a scientist.  SO let's take away his funding, his status in the community, and then ridicule him if he is funded by Christians who believe in a designer.


Who?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,11:42   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 14 2009,16:40)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 14 2009,11:04)
I enjoy rational debate with intellectually honest, intelligent people, I make no secret of that. I don't enjoy coddling intellectually dishonest morons. It remains to be seen which camp you'll fall into.

With all due respect, my friend, no.

It doesn't.

You're probably right. You know me, I'm a big softie, I like to give people a few chances to be rational.

I'm trying a new approach. It might* work. If it does then we get a nice conversation, if it doesn't then we get a standard chew toy.

As I am watching the Six Nations at the moment, I think a quote is appropriate:

Quote
"The relationship between England and Wales is based on trust and understanding. They don't trust us, and we don't understand them"

Ex-RFU Secretary Dudley Wood


The same sort of thing applies to us and creationists (although I am loathe to put things in such adversarial terms), except that creationists don't understand and don't trust scientists, and scientists understand creationists vastly too well, and therefore don't trust them at all.

I know RFJE has got off to a poor start, but I'm giving him a final chance or so to make a sensible stab at rational discourse. If he fails, as it looks likely he will do, then he'll go into the same bin as GoP/AFD/FTK/Obliviot/Denial etc. But I think it's up to him to decide where he wants to be, not up to me. All I'm trying to do is find some common ground and see if it's possible to build from there. If all RFJE is interested in is mindless preaching (and this seems likely) and won't attempt to find a common position from which rational discourse can follow, or cannot manage to conduct a rational discussion, then we all know what happens.

Cheers

Louis

*Read: very probably will not.

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,12:14   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 14 2009,11:42)
You know me, I'm a big softie. I'm giving him a final chance... If he fails, as it looks likely he will do...then we all know what happens.

Cheers

Louis



--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,12:21   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 14 2009,18:14)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 14 2009,11:42)
You know me, I'm a big softie. I'm giving him a final chance... If he fails, as it looks likely he will do...then we all know what happens.

Cheers

Louis


DAMMIT DEADMAN!!!!

Stop exposing my evil side.

Louis

P.S. Soul? I already own all of those. Cheesy poofs on the other hand.....there's never enough cheesy poofs.

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,12:23   

There's some weird reversal going on here, like I'm all "fuck you Refred" and Louis is all, "let me exude yet more patience and solicitude."

Doesn't that alarm anyone?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,12:25   

Exactly!

I hate it when Louis is on drugs.

We gotta talk him down.

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,12:37   



--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,12:37   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2009,18:23)
There's some weird reversal going on here, like I'm all "fuck you Refred" and Louis is all, "let me exude yet more patience and solicitude."

Doesn't that alarm anyone?

It's alarming the fuck out of me for starters!

I always give people a chance before going for the "fuck you retard" route. I surprised no one noticed....

;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,12:38   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 14 2009,18:25)
Exactly!

I hate it when Louis is on drugs.

We gotta talk him down.

I'm NOT on drugs.

But, apropos of nothing, have you really looked at your hands? I mean REALLY looked at them.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,13:12   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 14 2009,13:38)
 
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 14 2009,18:25)
Exactly!

I hate it when Louis is on drugs.

We gotta talk him down.

I'm NOT on drugs.

But, apropos of nothing, have you really looked at your hands? I mean REALLY looked at them.

Louis

I really looked at my hands last Tuesday. I'm working on Heberden's nodes (signifying arthritis) on the last joint of a couple fingers which I worry will get in the way of my piano noodling fun. Plus that little black ink spot on the palm of my left hand, into which I inadvertently jammed the tip of a ball point pen a few years ago, is still visible. It occurred to me that this is my only tattoo. But it was free.

But in defiance of all that I'm sitting here noodling my Clavinova into Garage Band while posting here. Which proves that my fingers can still fing.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5452
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,13:22   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2009,13:23)
There's some weird reversal going on here, like I'm all "fuck you Refred" and Louis is all, "let me exude yet more patience and solicitude."

Doesn't that alarm anyone?

Jesus Christ, it's the End Times!!!!!11!!

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,13:40   

Its ReFred Madness.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,13:41   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 14 2009,19:22)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2009,13:23)
There's some weird reversal going on here, like I'm all "fuck you Refred" and Louis is all, "let me exude yet more patience and solicitude."

Doesn't that alarm anyone?

Jesus Christ, it's the End Times!!!!!11!!

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - MASS HYSTERIA!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,13:50   

Quote
Heberden's nodes (signifying arthritis)


There's name for them?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,14:01   



--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,17:20   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 14 2009,11:27)
Quote
Then when one of your own scientists who is trained by evolutionary science, and is highly credentialed, turns  and says, "You guys, there's too many problems with this theory and I really think there is some design implications here in this thing I'm studying--then suddenly--he is no longer a scientist.  SO let's take away his funding, his status in the community, and then ridicule him if he is funded by Christians who believe in a designer.


Who?

oh you know who



but if i'm wrong please, do tell.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,20:11   

Quote (khan @ Feb. 14 2009,14:50)
Quote
Heberden's nodes (signifying arthritis)


There's name for them?

They're painful for a time - perhaps six months - then tend to settle down discomfort-wise, although the bumpy nodes represent osteoarthritis damage and are permanent.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,20:32   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2009,21:11)
Quote (khan @ Feb. 14 2009,14:50)
Quote
Heberden's nodes (signifying arthritis)


There's name for them?

They're painful for a time - perhaps six months - then tend to settle down discomfort-wise, although the bumpy nodes represent osteoarthritis damage and are permanent.

Another example of incompetent (or sadistic) design?

They usually aren't painful.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
George



Posts: 316
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,11:48   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 14 2009,10:10)
Evolution Weekend: Over 11,000 Christian clergy in the USA say RFJE's dichotomy is false.

 
Quote

2009 Evolution Weekend

This year represents the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin (12 February 1809) and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his seminal work On the Origin of Species in 1859. This backdrop provides a rich opportunity to demonstrate that religion and science have much to offer one another. Please join us and congregations all around the world iin celebrating Evolution Weekend 2009!

13 -15 February 2009 -- Evolution Weekend

Evolution Weekend is an opportunity for serious discussion and reflection on the relationship between religion and science. One important goal is to elevate the quality of the discussion on this critical topic - to move beyond sound bites. A second critical goal is to demonstrate that religious people from many faiths and locations understand that evolution is sound science and poses no problems for their faith. Finally, as with The Clergy Letter itself, which has now been signed by more than 11,000 members of the Christian clergy in the United States, Evolution Weekend makes it clear that those claiming that people must choose between religion and science are creating a false dichotomy.

Through sermons, discussion groups, meaningful conversations and seminars, the leaders listed below will show that religion and science are not adversaries.  

RFJE, I would really like you to address Wesley's contribution.  Can you understand it?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,12:57   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 14 2009,08:26)
I know, don't feed the troll.  Satan is making me do this!

Hey, Mayberry RFD, you wrote:


 
Quote
Then when one of your own scientists who is trained by evolutionary science, and is highly credentialed, turns  and says, "You guys, there's too many problems with this theory and I really think there is some design implications here in this thing I'm studying--then suddenly--he is no longer a scientist.  SO let's take away his funding, his status in the community, and then ridicule him if he is funded by Christians who believe in a designer.


Who are you referring to?

No one. I think it's just one a them parables.

You know, to show us how very bad it would be if that kind of thing DID happen.

So a fantasy scenario proves we're all bad people. :angry:

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5452
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,13:29   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 15 2009,13:57)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 14 2009,08:26)
I know, don't feed the troll.  Satan is making me do this!

Hey, Mayberry RFD, you wrote:


 
Quote
Then when one of your own scientists who is trained by evolutionary science, and is highly credentialed, turns  and says, "You guys, there's too many problems with this theory and I really think there is some design implications here in this thing I'm studying--then suddenly--he is no longer a scientist.  SO let's take away his funding, his status in the community, and then ridicule him if he is funded by Christians who believe in a designer.


Who are you referring to?

No one. I think it's just one a them parables.

You know, to show us how very bad it would be if that kind of thing DID happen.

So a fantasy scenario proves we're all bad people. :angry:

I'm telling you, between that and the graph/avatar, I smell and AFDavey Doodles about.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,13:38   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 15 2009,20:29)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 15 2009,13:57)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 14 2009,08:26)
I know, don't feed the troll.  Satan is making me do this!

Hey, Mayberry RFD, you wrote:


   
Quote
Then when one of your own scientists who is trained by evolutionary science, and is highly credentialed, turns  and says, "You guys, there's too many problems with this theory and I really think there is some design implications here in this thing I'm studying--then suddenly--he is no longer a scientist.  SO let's take away his funding, his status in the community, and then ridicule him if he is funded by Christians who believe in a designer.


Who are you referring to?

No one. I think it's just one a them parables.

You know, to show us how very bad it would be if that kind of thing DID happen.

So a fantasy scenario proves we're all bad people. :angry:

I'm telling you, between that and the graph/avatar, I smell and AFDavey Doodles about.

mmmhhh... I couldn't say. No threats of sending his bitches on our collective asses, no busting about his kung-fu/kendo/drunken boxing habilities...

Copycat as copy does (whatever THAT means) :)

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5452
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,13:44   

Start here, but swallow your coffee first.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5452
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,13:50   

And on the following page, this is the missing bit of brilliance from Steve's post.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,13:53   

Ok. Lucky for you, I went through that thread before, so the shock was not "projective".

But thanks for the tard-drive. It's not as if I am not already suffering on FTK's thread (page 214 so far, and that stuff with Skatje almost made me want to nuke Kansas! Sorry Dave, casualties of war).

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,14:46   

If RFJE holds to usual religious antievolutionist form, trying to deal with theistic evolution and theistic evolutionists is going to be a huge problem for him.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,14:55   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 15 2009,21:46)
If RFJE holds to usual religious antievolutionist form, trying to deal with theistic evolution and theistic evolutionists is going to be a huge problem for him.

Agreed 100%

Wes, as the "master of this venue", I hope you will forgive me for some of my ascerbic comments towards religion. I do not wish to mock anyone's belief, but I trully think that the average fundie's way of thinking/worshipping is in no way similar to yours (or any other theist scientist on this board).

It just blows my mind that smart people can easily reconcile their personal beliefs with mainstream science whereas others just seem stuck 500 years ago (at least).

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,15:40   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 15 2009,14:55)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 15 2009,21:46)
If RFJE holds to usual religious antievolutionist form, trying to deal with theistic evolution and theistic evolutionists is going to be a huge problem for him.

Agreed 100%

Wes, as the "master of this venue", I hope you will forgive me for some of my ascerbic comments towards religion. I do not wish to mock anyone's belief, but I trully think that the average fundie's way of thinking/worshipping is in no way similar to yours (or any other theist scientist on this board).

It just blows my mind that smart people can easily reconcile their personal beliefs with mainstream science whereas others just seem stuck 500 years ago (at least).

My limited experience suggests it's based on upbringing and identity. Some groups self-identify as (a) different (b) persecuted or threatened in some way or another and ( c) self-evidently in the right.

Children born into these groups soak up these assumptions and conflate them with their personal and family identities. To disagree with them on these taboo subjects can provoke the same response as saying that their father is a bad man and their mother is ugly. Others who are not born members might subscribe to those central beliefs out of convenience or agreement, but the point is that they appeal to something that tugs at the heart, not the head.

We all have these blind spots and react in that way, whether it concerns countries, football clubs, political parties or religions. When the disagreement is about something that is considered unimportant (say, science education), the strength of the counterargument is irrelevant: it's just wrong.

What I find difficult to understand is the acceptance by members of nominally Christian groups of blatant lying and misrepresentation. Perhaps it doesn't count when the person who points it out isn't a True Believer.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,16:16   

Quote
What I find difficult to understand is the acceptance by members of nominally Christian groups of blatant lying and misrepresentation. Perhaps it doesn't count when the person who points it out isn't a True Believer.


Agreed.

The religious upbringing I did have did not include lying and slander as values.

When quite young I used to wonder how to respond to 'information' presented by avowed Christians.

I became disgusted when I found out that most of the time they were lying.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,18:46   

Quote (Amadan @ Feb. 15 2009,13:40)
To disagree with them on these taboo subjects can provoke the same response as saying that their father is a bad man and their mother is ugly.

Wait, I missed something -- when did we start talking about Louis?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,19:03   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 15 2009,14:46)
If RFJE holds to usual religious antievolutionist form, trying to deal with theistic evolution and theistic evolutionists is going to be a huge problem for him.

Am I the only one amused by the fact RFJE never responded to Wes? It's probably a coincidence but I gets mah lulz where I can.  :D

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,22:11   

Quote (khan @ Feb. 15 2009,16:16)
Quote
What I find difficult to understand is the acceptance by members of nominally Christian groups of blatant lying and misrepresentation. Perhaps it doesn't count when the person who points it out isn't a True Believer.


Agreed.

The religious upbringing I did have did not include lying and slander as values.

When quite young I used to wonder how to respond to 'information' presented by avowed Christians.

I became disgusted when I found out that most of the time they were lying.

the baptist church i went to should have been a soap opera.  i just figure they are all like that.  man our piano lady was killer though.  if you ever heard jimmy swaggart play the piano she was that good.  i'm still eat up with that part of it, the temptation to start a snake oil show and tear up northeast alabama on a holy rollin tour is strong with this knight.  anyway the secretary was stealing from the church and the preachers daughter was a secret lesbian although when i look back they sorta kept her hid but if you saw her it wasn't no secret.  wasn't no skynyrd song if you know what i mean.  after i grew up and didn't have to go anymore some of the congregation ran off with each others wives and all that sorta thing it was like they were just there to be scandalous and get forgiven or something.  what a bunch of freaks.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,22:33   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 15 2009,20:11)
 
Quote (khan @ Feb. 15 2009,16:16)
   
Quote
What I find difficult to understand is the acceptance by members of nominally Christian groups of blatant lying and misrepresentation. Perhaps it doesn't count when the person who points it out isn't a True Believer.


Agreed.

The religious upbringing I did have did not include lying and slander as values.

When quite young I used to wonder how to respond to 'information' presented by avowed Christians.

I became disgusted when I found out that most of the time they were lying.

the baptist church i went to should have been a soap opera.  i just figure they are all like that.  man our piano lady was killer though.  if you ever heard jimmy swaggart play the piano she was that good.

Swaggart just ripped off his musical ideas from his cousin Jerry.  :angry:

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,23:10   

not really.  i mean its certainly the same milieu but also from elvis.  and some charismatic jesus playboy thing that only he did.  but they certainly had a lot in common.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
SoonerintheBluegrass



Posts: 39
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,04:55   

[QUOTE]but they certainly had a lot in common.
[CODE]

They both liked young girls?

--------------
"And heaven will smell like the airport
But I may not get there to prove it
So let's not waste our time thinking how that ain't fair."

Neko Case

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,06:11   

and piles of cocaine.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
silverspoon



Posts: 123
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,15:50   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 14 2009,09:32)
(snip all that other stuff)
I'll redo it.

And Louis I will answer your questions---
I have to take my son to a game.

Extra innings?

This is really taxing my lurking abilities.

--------------
Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,15:55   

Quote (silverspoon @ Feb. 16 2009,15:50)
 
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 14 2009,09:32)
(snip all that other stuff)
I'll redo it.

And Louis I will answer your questions---
I have to take my son to a game.

Extra innings?

This is really taxing my lurking abilities.

Maybe RFJE was prompted to think, perhaps for the first time in his life. Hence the delay.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,16:29   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 16 2009,21:55)
Quote (silverspoon @ Feb. 16 2009,15:50)
   
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 14 2009,09:32)
(snip all that other stuff)
I'll redo it.

And Louis I will answer your questions---
I have to take my son to a game.

Extra innings?

This is really taxing my lurking abilities.

Maybe RFJE was prompted to think, perhaps for the first time in his life. Hence the delay.

Thinking for the first time? Don't be patently ridiculous!

Anyway, I'm patient and I understand people have lives. I know I do! If he's going to post lots of god whalloping bible drivel, then the least he can do is answer some easy questions. However, if he's not going to post at all, then I'm happy to wait.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,16:31   



--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,18:04   

I think RFJE only has a ticket for the short bus.



Edited by Lou FCD on Feb. 16 2009,21:17

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,18:54   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 16 2009,18:04)
I think RFJE only has a ticket for the short bus.

"Comment Of Teh Week!" *

*Recognized by The Academy of Science Lovers and Posters for recognition of the excellent short response to another posters in-depth comment and Photo-Shop and/or LOL cat inclusion.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,21:05   

Welp, one of the bits o' his delusional rant that I submitted, piecemeal, to FSTDT was posted.  Hooray!  Now more can  share the joy!

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,21:37   

OMG!

Post of the Week!  And, it's only Monday!

I'd like to thank my agent and my publicist and, of course, Jesus and his father, God, without whom I would not have been so blessed.  And, I'm sorry the rest of you aren't blessed but there's only so much blessed to go around and it's my turn.

So, there.

But, I'd really like to thank Amadan who did the tee-up to my award even though Amadan, obviously, did something to be less blessed than me.

And, while I'm blessed, I'd like to pray that the scrotum fungus that Louis suffers from clears up.

Hugs to everybody, even Arlen, even though he's a H)m).

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,22:43   

Yeah I could once relate to your comments, I once told some Jesus people to leave my front door.  When they asked me why the only thing I could think to tell them was that I didn't like them.  But that's when I liked chemistry--in my head.  Yes I would say the peace of God is nothing like any numbing drug as in alcohol or cocaine.

Hi Louis and all,

**Okay friends, back to the goalposts.  By the way I do work quite a bit--my family likes to eat.    I have also been studying.   NONE of this is from creationist research.  It is your theory.

A. Just an introductory point:  Could someone solve this equation for me.  2xyz + 6(a - b) - 5x=c
Surely someone could solve this and give me the answer that I'm thinking in my mind.  Answer: you don't know what I'm thinking, and there are too many variables.  So evolutionists would just assign values to the variables and give an absolute value to c.  There it fits, so it's a fact!  The problem is I was most likely thinking something else in my mind for c.  SO you didn't really solve it.  In this case, I am hypothetically a being that observed the entire past of earth, and c = what really happened.

B.Life making conditions at abiogenesis?

**Louis, your theory says the earth is about 4.6 (?) years old, and you built an entire geologic age  (hadean) with hardly any traces (big variable). Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to at least some, the earth degassed through volcanic activity--out came water vapor, CO2, N, methane, and what else I don't remember (don't have time to find the material) to create an anaerobic atmosphere.

1. If there was water vapor and CO2, then there was O on earth.  I already know about the O catastrophe, but even in your theory you admit there was O, quite alot of it apparently-- there was enough water vapor to condense and fill the oceans.

2. Nonsarcastic question: With all that CO2, wouldn't the temperature have been extremely hot, plus no ozone?  Heat and radiation.  Nasty!   Maybe like Venus huh? bobthelien.co.uk
   
     "The swirling clouds look peaceful, but they are definitely not! The planet receives heat from the Sun...unable to escape back into space ...Temperatures can reach up to 600°c..."
     "The cloud...is full of deadly sulphuric acids droplets, not water droplets as on Earth. Nearly all of Venus' atmosphere is made up of carbon dioxide,

3. Chemistry not my subject, as you know, but all those gases sound really nasty mixing together, especially with unprotected sunlight coming in.  What kind of nasty toxins would that have created.  

**I did actually read that Stanley Miller had to isolate alot of sludgey toxins from the mix just so he could get the toxic racemic mixture of the few amino acids made.  Alot of intelligent interference there.  Apparently it takes intelligent interference to create organic (if you would qualify the mixture as organic) materials from inorganic materials

**In your theory, cyanobacteria  (blue green algae) appear at about 3.5 billion years in the fossil record, not the archaens, which would have made more sense to me since they can live in alot of heat (still alive today as well as the cyanobacteria, hmm). There was the oxygen catastrophe around 2.2 billion years ago, caused by the microorganisms of that era, which in turn killed many of them.

**Just a parenthetical note Louis.  Something from Plant Physiology, American Society of Plant Biologists

"First published online March 26, 2004; Plant Physiology © 2004 American Society of Plant Biologists
  [CHECK OUT THE TITLE]
"A Novel Role of Water-Soluble Chlorophyll Proteins in the Transitory Storage of Chorophyllide1,2"

**WELL AT LEAST THERE ARE SOME PROTEINS THAT ARE WATER SOLUBLE.  Don't cyanobacteria have chorophyll in them?  I mean they did/do the photosynthesis thing.  Seems kind of risky to let that out of the bag.  Perhaps their ancestor (the first grandpa) had some water soluble chorophyll in him!  

**Anyway, your oxygen catastrophe has some "evidence."  You know it I know, but so you know I have researched it.

The oxygen catastrophe  www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/precambian/proterastrat.html
The first "pollution crisis" hit the Earth about 2.2 billion years ago. Several pieces of evidence -- the presence of iron oxides in paleosols (fossil soils), the appearance of "red beds" containing metal oxides, and others -- point to a fairly rapid increase in levels of oxygen in the atmosphere at about this time.

This is a non-deduction.  Deduction requires the ruling out of all other possibilities.  It is circumstantial evidence.  The oxides could have been caused by water.  You know creationist would stick this in their model too.  Another scenario built on a variable.

** I have also  read about how some believe iron deposits show evidence of O2.  Fe++ to Fe+++ (are these ions or what, I really need to take chemistry, so sue me).  This is an admitted hypothesis.  Again water is a possibility.

C. Oxygen ( CO2, H2O) was on the earth, but it was all underground, none of it in the atmosphere--right.  But if it wasn't, you had no O3 either, so lots of radiation.  But radiation causes chemical reactions and hopefully mutations!  Yeah , I'm sure alot of chemical reactions are happening when a guy stands by an ultra violet light for a while.

1. Nasa.gov --search uv light:Health effects of UV-B light
"Genetic damage DNA absorbs UV-B light and the absorbed energy can break bonds in the DNA...one method that scientists use to analyze amounts of 'genetically-damaging UV-B is to expose samples of DNA to the light and then count the number of breaks in the DNA. For example J.Regan's work at the Florida Institute of Technology ...genetically significant doses of solar radiation could penetrate as far as 9 feet into non-turbulant ocean water."

2.Posted By: Jill Irvin RD, Staff, Food and Nutrition, Ohio State University. Area of science: Chemistry

"So now, back to denaturization. When a protein is stressed, like during heating (cooking an egg), stirring (whipping up egg whites) [OR EXPOSURE TO UV LIGHT], the bonds that hold a protein in its tertiary structure will begin to break..."

(Parenthetical)  "For example, denatured proteins usually becomes less soluble, that is, it doesn't dissolve in water as well...." same source

**Louis, you really need to talk to these science people that keep disagreeing with you about protein and water.

D.If all this CO2 was on earth and we were like Venus, how did the water vapor condense to form oceans?!!!!!! That is if all these gases could have somehow stayed seperated.  But I would suspect they probably wouldn't have.

1."Early Earth probably had an atmosphere dominated by carbon dioxide similar to the atmosphere of Venus today." eesc.columbia.edu--Early Earth and the Evolution of the Atmosphere

2."The cloud that covers Venus is not like the cloud[s] that we have in our skies. It is full of deadly sulphuric acids droplets, not water droplets as on Earth" bobthealien.co.uk

Sincerely,
RFJE

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,22:53   

<leans back, crosses eyes. defecates in underwear, passes out with needle stuck in arm>

Ahhhh that's the good stuff right there.  the peace of tard is numbing like nothing else including the sword of the lard

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,23:01   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 18 2009,22:43)
Yeah I could once relate to your comments, I once told some Jesus people to leave my front door.  When they asked me why the only thing I could think to tell them was that I didn't like them.  But that's when I liked chemistry--in my head.  Yes I would say the peace of God is nothing like any numbing drug as in alcohol or cocaine.

Hi Louis and all,

**Okay friends, back to the goalposts.  By the way I do work quite a bit--my family likes to eat.    I have also been studying.   NONE of this is from creationist research.  It is your theory.

A. Just an introductory point:  Could someone solve this equation for me.  2xyz + 6(a - b) - 5x=c
Surely someone could solve this and give me the answer that I'm thinking in my mind.  Answer: you don't know what I'm thinking, and there are too many variables.  So evolutionists would just assign values to the variables and give an absolute value to c.  There it fits, so it's a fact!  The problem is I was most likely thinking something else in my mind for c.  SO you didn't really solve it.  In this case, I am hypothetically a being that observed the entire past of earth, and c = what really happened.

B.Life making conditions at abiogenesis?

**Louis, your theory says the earth is about 4.6 (?) years old, and you built an entire geologic age  (hadean) with hardly any traces (big variable). Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to at least some, the earth degassed through volcanic activity--out came water vapor, CO2, N, methane, and what else I don't remember (don't have time to find the material) to create an anaerobic atmosphere.

1. If there was water vapor and CO2, then there was O on earth.  I already know about the O catastrophe, but even in your theory you admit there was O, quite alot of it apparently-- there was enough water vapor to condense and fill the oceans.

2. Nonsarcastic question: With all that CO2, wouldn't the temperature have been extremely hot, plus no ozone?  Heat and radiation.  Nasty!   Maybe like Venus huh? bobthelien.co.uk
   
     "The swirling clouds look peaceful, but they are definitely not! The planet receives heat from the Sun...unable to escape back into space ...Temperatures can reach up to 600°c..."
     "The cloud...is full of deadly sulphuric acids droplets, not water droplets as on Earth. Nearly all of Venus' atmosphere is made up of carbon dioxide,

3. Chemistry not my subject, as you know, but all those gases sound really nasty mixing together, especially with unprotected sunlight coming in.  What kind of nasty toxins would that have created.  

**I did actually read that Stanley Miller had to isolate alot of sludgey toxins from the mix just so he could get the toxic racemic mixture of the few amino acids made.  Alot of intelligent interference there.  Apparently it takes intelligent interference to create organic (if you would qualify the mixture as organic) materials from inorganic materials

**In your theory, cyanobacteria  (blue green algae) appear at about 3.5 billion years in the fossil record, not the archaens, which would have made more sense to me since they can live in alot of heat (still alive today as well as the cyanobacteria, hmm). There was the oxygen catastrophe around 2.2 billion years ago, caused by the microorganisms of that era, which in turn killed many of them.

**Just a parenthetical note Louis.  Something from Plant Physiology, American Society of Plant Biologists

"First published online March 26, 2004; Plant Physiology © 2004 American Society of Plant Biologists
  [CHECK OUT THE TITLE]
"A Novel Role of Water-Soluble Chlorophyll Proteins in the Transitory Storage of Chorophyllide1,2"

**WELL AT LEAST THERE ARE SOME PROTEINS THAT ARE WATER SOLUBLE.  Don't cyanobacteria have chorophyll in them?  I mean they did/do the photosynthesis thing.  Seems kind of risky to let that out of the bag.  Perhaps their ancestor (the first grandpa) had some water soluble chorophyll in him!  

**Anyway, your oxygen catastrophe has some "evidence."  You know it I know, but so you know I have researched it.

The oxygen catastrophe  www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/precambian/proterastrat.html
The first "pollution crisis" hit the Earth about 2.2 billion years ago. Several pieces of evidence -- the presence of iron oxides in paleosols (fossil soils), the appearance of "red beds" containing metal oxides, and others -- point to a fairly rapid increase in levels of oxygen in the atmosphere at about this time.

This is a non-deduction.  Deduction requires the ruling out of all other possibilities.  It is circumstantial evidence.  The oxides could have been caused by water.  You know creationist would stick this in their model too.  Another scenario built on a variable.

** I have also  read about how some believe iron deposits show evidence of O2.  Fe++ to Fe+++ (are these ions or what, I really need to take chemistry, so sue me).  This is an admitted hypothesis.  Again water is a possibility.

C. Oxygen ( CO2, H2O) was on the earth, but it was all underground, none of it in the atmosphere--right.  But if it wasn't, you had no O3 either, so lots of radiation.  But radiation causes chemical reactions and hopefully mutations!  Yeah , I'm sure alot of chemical reactions are happening when a guy stands by an ultra violet light for a while.

1. Nasa.gov --search uv light:Health effects of UV-B light
"Genetic damage DNA absorbs UV-B light and the absorbed energy can break bonds in the DNA...one method that scientists use to analyze amounts of 'genetically-damaging UV-B is to expose samples of DNA to the light and then count the number of breaks in the DNA. For example J.Regan's work at the Florida Institute of Technology ...genetically significant doses of solar radiation could penetrate as far as 9 feet into non-turbulant ocean water."

2.Posted By: Jill Irvin RD, Staff, Food and Nutrition, Ohio State University. Area of science: Chemistry

"So now, back to denaturization. When a protein is stressed, like during heating (cooking an egg), stirring (whipping up egg whites) [OR EXPOSURE TO UV LIGHT], the bonds that hold a protein in its tertiary structure will begin to break..."

(Parenthetical)  "For example, denatured proteins usually becomes less soluble, that is, it doesn't dissolve in water as well...." same source

**Louis, you really need to talk to these science people that keep disagreeing with you about protein and water.

D.If all this CO2 was on earth and we were like Venus, how did the water vapor condense to form oceans?!!!!!! That is if all these gases could have somehow stayed seperated.  But I would suspect they probably wouldn't have.

1."Early Earth probably had an atmosphere dominated by carbon dioxide similar to the atmosphere of Venus today." eesc.columbia.edu--Early Earth and the Evolution of the Atmosphere

2."The cloud that covers Venus is not like the cloud[s] that we have in our skies. It is full of deadly sulphuric acids droplets, not water droplets as on Earth" bobthealien.co.uk

Sincerely,
RFJE

Venus??  Sulfuric acid rain might have stopped protein formation or anything--ya think.  They must not have meant to said that.  Was that Columbia?  Yes it was.  Maybe their closet creationists.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,23:04   

RFJE:

Quote

Louis, you really need to talk to these science people that keep disagreeing with you about protein and water.


Help me out here. I looked over the entire thread, and didn't manage to find a single thing said by Louis concerning "protein and water" that any of your citations put in any doubt. Where, I ask, will I find such?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,23:12   

I'm amazed anyone could make heads or tails of that word salad of RFJE's.

Okay, so  I *THINK* he's trying to make the claim that if the early Earth atmosphere was "dominated" by CO2...then it had to be *exactly* like Venus today--complete with sulfuric acid clouds?  

There's a vague gesture towards UV as damaging to DNA/RNA...A mention of archaea and cyanobacteria. The Hadean.

By golly, I think this is some sort of argument against abiogenesis -- except written by a  disciple of KairosFocus, on a hellishly powerful toad extract.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Ra-Úl



Posts: 93
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,23:26   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 18 2009,23:12)
I'm amazed anyone could make heads or tails of that word salad of RFJE's.

Right. And I've been reading ke for years

edited to fix tags

--------------
Beauty is that which makes us desperate. - P Valery

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,23:40   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 18 2009,23:12)
I'm amazed anyone could make heads or tails of that word salad of RFJE's.

ETA: I *THINK* he's trying to make the claim that if the early Earth atmosphere was "dominated" by CO2...then it had to be *exactly* like Venus today--complete with sulfuric acid clouds?  

Does anyone speak tardish? "bobthealien.co.uk" is one helluva reference, there, RFJE. And another "reference" in your brain-dump is a... nutritionist? The mind boggles. What the hell does any of this mean? Is this (on the whole) an argument against abiogenesis?

On Venus--No Columbia made that claim.  Look at my sources.  Look at my questions. Look at the numbers.  It is an outline. **indicates my comments.  You have criticized my lack of knowledge in science, so I use sources.  Do you know what your own are saying?  

With all that CO2 how DID vapor condense and the oceans form?  Is this word salad, or do I need to explain this?

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,23:52   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 18 2009,23:04)
RFJE:

 
Quote

Louis, you really need to talk to these science people that keep disagreeing with you about protein and water.


Help me out here. I looked over the entire thread, and didn't manage to find a single thing said by Louis concerning "protein and water" that any of your citations put in any doubt. Where, I ask, will I find such?

I do not have time at this point, there was my intitial mistake of saying aa when i should have said protein water soluble.  Louis explained that certain acids can break proteins, not water.  If I am wrong about Louis then I apologize to you Louis.

What difference does it make anyway?  The point is that water can break down protein which would make abiogenes with water present impossible.

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,23:54   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 18 2009,23:12)
I'm amazed anyone could make heads or tails of that word salad of RFJE's.

Okay, so  I *THINK* he's trying to make the claim that if the early Earth atmosphere was "dominated" by CO2...then it had to be *exactly* like Venus today--complete with sulfuric acid clouds?  

There's a vague gesture towards UV as damaging to DNA/RNA...A mention of archaea and cyanobacteria. The Hadean.

By golly, I think this is some sort of argument against abiogenesis -- except written by a  disciple of KairosFocus, on a hellishly powerful toad extract.

I think there is also confusion between oxygen as a constituent of water and CO2 and oxygen as O2. As it swirled past I believe I caught a glimpse of the notion that anything toxic to us must also have been toxic to early life.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,00:00   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 18 2009,23:40)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 18 2009,23:12)
I'm amazed anyone could make heads or tails of that word salad of RFJE's.

ETA: I *THINK* he's trying to make the claim that if the early Earth atmosphere was "dominated" by CO2...then it had to be *exactly* like Venus today--complete with sulfuric acid clouds?  

Does anyone speak tardish? "bobthealien.co.uk" is one helluva reference, there, RFJE. And another "reference" in your brain-dump is a... nutritionist? The mind boggles. What the hell does any of this mean? Is this (on the whole) an argument against abiogenesis?

On Venus--No Columbia made that claim.  Look at my sources.  Look at my questions. Look at the numbers.  It is an outline. **indicates my comments.  You have criticized my lack of knowledge in science, so I use sources.  Do you know what your own are saying?  

With all that CO2 how DID vapor condense and the oceans form?  Is this word salad, or do I need to explain this?

"Columbia?" You mean the whole university stood up en masse one day, and in unison intoned what you posted?

Yes, RFJE, I think you're going to have to spell out exactly what you mean, because I'm really having fun looking at what you wrote so far. Please continue.

The short answer to your question on "condensation" is that the early Earth was initially very hot,  but it cooled over time... allowing water vapor to condense.

However, I'd like hear your "take" on early Earth conditions: atmosphere, temps, water and umm...things like carbon-absorbing minerals and stuff like iron that reacts with gases. The stage is yours. Please continue. Flesh out your "outline"

P.S. : your claim about water tearing up them proteins is interesting. How much of your body is water, percentage-wise, RFJE?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,00:04   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 18 2009,23:04)
RFJE:

 
Quote

Louis, you really need to talk to these science people that keep disagreeing with you about protein and water.


Help me out here. I looked over the entire thread, and didn't manage to find a single thing said by Louis concerning "protein and water" that any of your citations put in any doubt. Where, I ask, will I find such?

In his very first post, he talked about the hydrolysis of amino acids. Later, he talked about the reaction to make protein and its conformation due to hydrophilic/hydrophobic effects, and claimed that it confirmed one of the points he made. From these and his latest remark, I gather RFJE thinks hydrolysis = water solubility.

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,00:09   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 18 2009,23:54)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 18 2009,23:12)
I'm amazed anyone could make heads or tails of that word salad of RFJE's.

Okay, so  I *THINK* he's trying to make the claim that if the early Earth atmosphere was "dominated" by CO2...then it had to be *exactly* like Venus today--complete with sulfuric acid clouds?  

There's a vague gesture towards UV as damaging to DNA/RNA...A mention of archaea and cyanobacteria. The Hadean.

By golly, I think this is some sort of argument against abiogenesis -- except written by a  disciple of KairosFocus, on a hellishly powerful toad extract.

I think there is also confusion between oxygen as a constituent of water and CO2 and oxygen as O2. As it swirled past I believe I caught a glimpse of the notion that anything toxic to us must also have been toxic to early life.

No, Richard, there is no confusion.  My argument is that the element O was on earth.  It was bonded to C and H (CO2, H2O).  I know the difference between O2 and O.  I'm not that ignorant.

I do not have time to sit at a comp all day and discuss this.  I work and many of these questions come to me as I study and think about them at work.  That's why you get a rough draft.  Would you like a thesis?  Then you'll be whining about how long I take to get back.

DO you guys have to criticize everything or could we have some discourse?

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,00:22   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 19 2009,00:09)
My argument is that the element O was on earth.  It was bonded to C and H (CO2, H2O).  I know the difference between O2 and O.  I'm not that ignorant.

I do not have time to sit at a comp all day and discuss this.  I work and many of these questions come to me as I study and think about them at work.  That's why you get a rough draft.  Would you like a thesis?  Then you'll be whining about how long I take to get back.

DO you guys have to criticize everything or could we have some discourse?

Well, of course there was some oxygen on earth. Water is comparatively abundant in the universe -- it's found in interstellar space. But it's pretty reactive, so...yeah. See: Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0805.0055: Formation of Hydrogen Peroxide and Water from the Reaction of Cold Hydrogen Atoms with Solid Oxygen at 10 K

Also..."criticizing" ideas and claims is how science works, really. Did you want some kind of free pass on speculation? Please continue to expand on your outline, though, and the main points of your argument.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,00:22   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 19 2009,00:00)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 18 2009,23:40)
   
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 18 2009,23:12)
I'm amazed anyone could make heads or tails of that word salad of RFJE's.

ETA: I *THINK* he's trying to make the claim that if the early Earth atmosphere was "dominated" by CO2...then it had to be *exactly* like Venus today--complete with sulfuric acid clouds?  

Does anyone speak tardish? "bobthealien.co.uk" is one helluva reference, there, RFJE. And another "reference" in your brain-dump is a... nutritionist? The mind boggles. What the hell does any of this mean? Is this (on the whole) an argument against abiogenesis?

On Venus--No Columbia made that claim.  Look at my sources.  Look at my questions. Look at the numbers.  It is an outline. **indicates my comments.  You have criticized my lack of knowledge in science, so I use sources.  Do you know what your own are saying?  

With all that CO2 how DID vapor condense and the oceans form?  Is this word salad, or do I need to explain this?

"Columbia?" You mean the whole university stood up en masse one day, and in unison intoned what you posted?

Yes, RFJE, I think you're going to have to spell out exactly what you mean, because I'm really having fun looking at what you wrote so far. Please continue.

The short answer to your question on "condensation" is that the early Earth was initially very hot,  but it cooled over time... allowing water vapor to condense.

However, I'd like hear your "take" on early Earth conditions: atmosphere, temps, water and umm...things like carbon-absorbing minerals and stuff like iron that reacts with gases. The stage is yours. Please continue. Flesh out your "outline"

P.S. : your claim about water tearing up them proteins is interesting. How much of your body is water, percentage-wise, RFJE?

That's just the point.  You people don't even know what each other are saying.  Columbia endorses the site and this is someone's hypothesis.  Yes, I understand the earth cooled but by what means??

The same old thing--it just happened.

On protein--I think your body and a pool of water are a big difference.  Your body builds proteins with a vast array of mechanisms that I am not qualified to speak on, but DNA and mitochondria, enzymes, and hormones are some of them.  

And see here we go again.  Water is a solvent.  it is neutral, but is a solvent.  The peptide bonds have hydrophilic chains on the outside of the molecule which can react with water.  Not to mention agitation can break protein --i'm thinking waves here.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,00:27   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 19 2009,00:22)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 19 2009,00:00)
 
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 18 2009,23:40)
     
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 18 2009,23:12)
I'm amazed anyone could make heads or tails of that word salad of RFJE's.

ETA: I *THINK* he's trying to make the claim that if the early Earth atmosphere was "dominated" by CO2...then it had to be *exactly* like Venus today--complete with sulfuric acid clouds?  

Does anyone speak tardish? "bobthealien.co.uk" is one helluva reference, there, RFJE. And another "reference" in your brain-dump is a... nutritionist? The mind boggles. What the hell does any of this mean? Is this (on the whole) an argument against abiogenesis?

On Venus--No Columbia made that claim.  Look at my sources.  Look at my questions. Look at the numbers.  It is an outline. **indicates my comments.  You have criticized my lack of knowledge in science, so I use sources.  Do you know what your own are saying?  

With all that CO2 how DID vapor condense and the oceans form?  Is this word salad, or do I need to explain this?

"Columbia?" You mean the whole university stood up en masse one day, and in unison intoned what you posted?

Yes, RFJE, I think you're going to have to spell out exactly what you mean, because I'm really having fun looking at what you wrote so far. Please continue.

The short answer to your question on "condensation" is that the early Earth was initially very hot,  but it cooled over time... allowing water vapor to condense.

However, I'd like hear your "take" on early Earth conditions: atmosphere, temps, water and umm...things like carbon-absorbing minerals and stuff like iron that reacts with gases. The stage is yours. Please continue. Flesh out your "outline"

P.S. : your claim about water tearing up them proteins is interesting. How much of your body is water, percentage-wise, RFJE?

That's just the point.  You people don't even know what each other are saying.  Columbia endorses the site and this is someone's hypothesis.  Yes, I understand the earth cooled but by what means??

The same old thing--it just happened.

On protein--I think your body and a pool of water are a big difference.  Your body builds proteins with a vast array of mechanisms that I am not qualified to speak on, but DNA and mitochondria, enzymes, and hormones are some of them.  

And see here we go again.  Water is a solvent.  it is neutral, but is a solvent.  The peptide bonds have hydrophilic chains on the outside of the molecule which can react with water.  Not to mention agitation can break protein --i'm thinking waves here.

Space is a hellafied heat sink, RFJE. On your notions of water as a solvent -- how do viruses survive in water?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,00:27   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 19 2009,00:09)
Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 18 2009,23:54)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 18 2009,23:12)
I'm amazed anyone could make heads or tails of that word salad of RFJE's.

Okay, so  I *THINK* he's trying to make the claim that if the early Earth atmosphere was "dominated" by CO2...then it had to be *exactly* like Venus today--complete with sulfuric acid clouds?  

There's a vague gesture towards UV as damaging to DNA/RNA...A mention of archaea and cyanobacteria. The Hadean.

By golly, I think this is some sort of argument against abiogenesis -- except written by a  disciple of KairosFocus, on a hellishly powerful toad extract.

I think there is also confusion between oxygen as a constituent of water and CO2 and oxygen as O2. As it swirled past I believe I caught a glimpse of the notion that anything toxic to us must also have been toxic to early life.

No, Richard, there is no confusion.  My argument is that the element O was on earth.  It was bonded to C and H (CO2, H2O).  I know the difference between O2 and O.  I'm not that ignorant.

I do not have time to sit at a comp all day and discuss this.  I work and many of these questions come to me as I study and think about them at work.  That's why you get a rough draft.  Would you like a thesis?  Then you'll be whining about how long I take to get back.

DO you guys have to criticize everything or could we have some discourse?

I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I'd prefer it if you took the time to understand what it is you're disagreeing with (and the underlying science) before posting. It'll do wonders to the quality of responses you'll get. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but then I don't post screeds declaring abiogenesis happened/couldnt have happened either.

I haven't seen anyone here dispute the presence of oxygen (the element) on Earth.  Your argument therefore is that water and carbon dioxide would react the same as oxygen (the molecule) simply because they all have oxygen (the atom/element). This is false, and you would have avoided making such an obvious mistake if you took the time to learn Chemistry.

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,00:33   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 19 2009,00:22)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 19 2009,00:09)
My argument is that the element O was on earth.  It was bonded to C and H (CO2, H2O).  I know the difference between O2 and O.  I'm not that ignorant.

I do not have time to sit at a comp all day and discuss this.  I work and many of these questions come to me as I study and think about them at work.  That's why you get a rough draft.  Would you like a thesis?  Then you'll be whining about how long I take to get back.

DO you guys have to criticize everything or could we have some discourse?

Well, of course there was some oxygen on earth. Water is comparatively abundant in the universe -- it's found in interstellar space. But it's pretty reactive, so...yeah.

Also..."criticizing" ideas and claims is how science works, really. Did you want some kind of free pass on speculation? Please continue to expand on your outline, though, and the main points of your argument.

Okay then you guys are qualifying where O went. How do you know? You say it only went under the earth, and came out of volcanoes as CO2 and H2O water vapor. It couldn't go above the surface as O2.  Or O3.  

You say that because it was drummed up in someone's mind.  Whoever did that knew he couldn't have alot of O2 at abiogenesis.

As far as the comment made about bob the alien.  The site is obviously geared toward Jr hi or HS kids.  Its even a little animated looking.  But I'm sure that is to interest kids in science.  His info on Venus' atmosphere should be easily verifiable.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,00:40   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 19 2009,00:33)
You say that because it was drummed up in someone's mind.  Whoever did that knew he couldn't have alot of O2 at abiogenesis.

As far as the comment made about bob the alien.  The site is obviously geared toward Jr hi or HS kids.  Its even a little animated looking.  But I'm sure that is to interest kids in science.  His info on Venus' atmosphere should be easily verifiable.

Uh..is oxygen reactive with hydrogen? How abundant is hydrogen around the universe and in various objects around the universe? How about carbon compounds? Does hydrogen degass from rock?

There's good science behind constituent estimates of the early earth atmosphere -- but I'd still like you to set out your hypothesis in a coherent form.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2324
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,00:40   

RFJE, has it ever occurred to you that very intelligent, honest people have spent their lives studying the topics that you have spent a few hours?

Seriously.

I gave a link to my brief outline of the origin of life.

Read it, and get back to me with cogent remarks. Leave the bull shit at home.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,00:55   

RFJE: Just in case you wanted some info on how elemental estimates are done (in this case, on early Earth atmospheric hydrogen), you might want to look at

Tian, Feng and Owen B. Toon, Alexander A. Pavlov, H. De Sterck (2005) A Hydrogen-Rich Early Earth Atmosphere. Science 13 May:Vol. 308. no. 5724, pp. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi....3aeacfb
Quote
"we conclude that diffusion-limited escape theory does not apply to a hydrogen-rich early Earth atmosphere. Rather, the escape of hydrogen was energy limited. Hydrogen mixing ratios greater than 30% could have been maintained in the atmosphere of prebiotic Earth without either invoking huge volcanic hydrogen outgassing rates or assuming a reduced mantle. The efficient production of organics in a hydrogen-rich early Earth's atmosphere would have led to an organic soup in the oceans and ponds on the early Earth. The world ocean could have been the birthplace of life."


and this reply, also online:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5757/38b?rss=1

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,01:08   

Quote (raguel @ Feb. 19 2009,00:27)
I haven't seen anyone here dispute the presence of oxygen (the element) on Earth.  Your argument therefore is that water and carbon dioxide would react the same as oxygen (the molecule) simply because they all have oxygen (the atom/element). This is false, and you would have avoided making such an obvious mistake if you took the time to learn Chemistry.

No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying.  I am not saying CO2 and H2O react the same as O or O2.

According to the evolutionary model there was enough O atoms to bind with H (H2O) to make enough water vapor to create the oceans after the earth cooled.  

This is my point.  The MODEL is A THEORY created in someone's mind, and the theory shoots itself in the foot--If you've got enough O atoms to make enough H2O vapor to create OCEANS, then you've got alot of oygen.  Who is to say that it wouldn't bind with itself above the surface.  Why does nitrogen have to go all the way under ground and then come out of volcanoes?  It could have just as well stayed above the surface and formed an atmosphere.  Or it could permeate the earth underground and in the atmosphere.

But there is only one reason for this theory.  Evolution had to have it or abiogeneis wouldn't work.  Alot of O2 would have spelled disaster.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,01:13   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 19 2009,01:08)
But there is only one reason for this theory.  Evolution had to have it or abiogeneis wouldn't work.  Alot of O2 would have spelled disaster.

Yeah, it's all a big conspiracy and there's really no data on this at all, right? That's almost cute. It's so relieving  that this global plot by godless heathens was exposed by a guy using such sophisticated cunning.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,01:14   

Oh boy. He IS stoopid!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,01:19   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 19 2009,00:40)
RFJE, has it ever occurred to you that very intelligent, honest people have spent their lives studying the topics that you have spent a few hours?

Seriously.

I gave a link to my brief outline of the origin of life.

Read it, and get back to me with cogent remarks. Leave the bull shit at home.

With all due respect sir, if your going to use that argument to prove evolution, then I should be able to prove the existence of God by my 20 years of Bible and associated study--not all of it in school.  Perhaps you think it a book of fables, and can not see the intrinsic wisdom, the interlocking theme written by many writers over the course of 1800 to 2000 years, and the plan of redemption. And perhaps you reject supernatural events, and prophecy.  I am motivated by these to not believe evolution.

Not to mention the fact that it is much more logical to believe that intelligence created your brain, and that no mind on earth can reproduce it's functioning power, it's ability to judge and to control all bodily functions.  No matter how smart you are, if you've learned what is a wrong--you're wrong.

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,01:31   

Good night.  Look friends, i respect your knowledge, though you don't respect mine.  It's okay though, because you see I don't have one doubt there's a God, cause He's in my heart, and He's in my best friend's and in my wife's too.  You can tell where He lives because there's a difference in their life.  AND HE CREATED YOU IN HIS IMAGE--you're not an animal.

Get this.  Hypothetically speaking, if God is a Spirit as the Bible says, you have no way of finding Him by natural means.  He's in another dimension.  It's only through your spirit--your heart that you can find Him.  You can ask Him to show you, if you really want to know sincerely.  Not a hand on the hips "God if your real then do this."  But sincere seeking on the knees.  He'll show you when he's  ready.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,01:36   

Please, talk science or go preach-trolling somewhere else.

kaythnxbye!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,01:50   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 19 2009,01:13)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 19 2009,01:08)
But there is only one reason for this theory.  Evolution had to have it or abiogeneis wouldn't work.  Alot of O2 would have spelled disaster.

Yeah, it's all a big conspiracy and there's really no data on this at all, right? That's almost cute. It's so relieving  that this global plot by godless heathens was exposed by a guy using such sophisticated cunning.

Just one more.  Do you think I'm the only one.  I HAVE seen some of the actual research of a scientist--PhD from Harvard,  who did research at Mt. Saint Helens.  i wish they would let that in the schools.

But evolution has no rebuttal in the school's.  It is historical.  It got the minds of scientists back in Darwin's day.  They taught in universities.  Tomorrow's leaders learned under them.  Government endorsed it--funded it, kicked God out of the sophisticated modern age. And now you go to a grade school where you only learn evolution--inference--no God--your an animal, no sin, just respect your fellow man and we won't incarcerate you.

But in every state there are court battles going on with educated people who believe in intelligent design fighting for an equal voice.

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,01:55   

getting tired--the scientist was an ex-evolutionist-turned creationist, and knew evolution just as good as you guys.  He had the best multi slide presentation I have ever seen.  his research on river canyons and multiple forests was the bomb--you had to see it.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,01:57   

There are also a lot of people screaming out their lungs that they have been abducted by UFOs. Doesn't prevent me from sleeping, though.

And just one thing: do you really ACTUALLY think you can sway anyone around here with god talk? I've been raised in a roman catholic family, t's been 31 years now, and they couldn't sway me. So I highly doubt someone like you could.

May you be forever touched by His Noodly Appendage.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
George



Posts: 316
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,02:22   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 18 2009,23:52)
What difference does it make anyway?  The point is that water can break down protein which would make abiogenes with water present impossible.

This could also explain why you don't see anyone barbecuing in the rain.  Hickory-smoked aa soup anyone?

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,02:23   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 09 2009,22:00)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 09 2009,21:41)
To form protein, the amino acids are linked by dehydration synthesis to form peptide bonds.
---snip---

lots of sciency-sounding blabbering deleted
---unsnip---

Do I get an A for effort guys?

I am always amazed at how an IDiot can take a tiny nano-bit of information, combine it with a preconceived conclusion, and generate vast amounts of tard.

My hat is off to you, sir. You have taken "fractally wrong" to a new dimension.

First, Louis, you are an astounding bunch of people. If I ever get the chance to meet you, I'd like to get you drunk as shit and listen to you tell stories. My hat is off to you sir.

Second, Albitrossity, in what dimension does 'fractally wrong' begin?

Third, I've been away too long.

Fourth, RJFE, do you know what a chloroplast is? Just checking first. I don't want to assume anything.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,02:31   

I have to concur with others in the absence of any confirmation from RFJE of a statement from Louis that's actually at issue -- "hydrolysis" and "water solubility" are two different things.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,02:43   

Quote
getting tired--the scientist was an ex-evolutionist-turned creationist, and knew evolution just as good as you guys.  He had the best multi slide presentation I have ever seen.  his research on river canyons and multiple forests was the bomb--you had to see it.


Jimmy: Uhh, Mr. McClure?  I have a crazy friend who says creationists are wrong.  Is he crazy?
Troy: Nooo, just ignorant.  You see your crazy friend never heard of "The Bible".  Just ask this scientician.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,03:08   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,05:01)
My purpose is not to be proud. You people lynched me.  I was only showing you that the research is there for all to see, AND there are credentialed people in science that do not share your worldview or theory.  


True, you were set up a bit here. And also true, the research is there for all to see, AND there are credentialed people in science that do not share an atheistic worldview or accept the theory of evolution if that's what you mean. But none of the above excuses you of making an academic claim without academic understanding.

Maybe you can straighten out a few of your misconceptions on that front and help me straighten out any of my own that you may notice.

What you get here is what you earn rightfully for issuing a challenge of the type you issued. Your challenge is met. I'm at the beginning of this thread so I'm all excited to see how you do. I always think someone will show up with something coherent someday. I guess that makes me the eternal optimist.

Quote

I don't have any doubt that there are people on this thread far more credentialed than me--far more educated in science.  But I am not illiterate, and I can write, think and communicate.  

Great. Credentials get people jobs but they don't make anyone right. If you are right, it will become apparent because you will present arguments and support them and the support will withstand scrutiny. As of now, I have high hopes.

Quote
My points are elementary.  A second grader is quite qualified to answer the equation 2+2=4.  I did not come here claiming to have solved the secrets of blackholes. It is not required that I have a PHD in biochemistry to see the problems your theory has.  It only takes common sense to see some impasses.  


First, what is my theory? Abiogenesis? Is there a theory of abiogenesis? I've never encountered it. But then, I might not in my line of work.

Quote

You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice.  Knowledge puffs up, but godly love edifies.

Edifies? Isn't knowledge the result of edification? So, is there knowledge of god somewhere? Does that knowledge puff up or edify? See where I'm going with that?

Quote

 Since I have been on this site I have seen nothing but arrogance and elitism.  A vaunting of self and knowledge.

Everyone's got problems.
Quote
Knowledge and wisdom are not the same.  I think some of you are so full of knowledge you have no room for wisdom.

Hmmm. I'd like to know a little bit about the difference. If some one were to ask me, I'd probly say something inane like, "knowledge is data and wisdom is theory." or something equally as banal. And then I'd have to spend 20 pages explaining myself to Louis who never lets a detail go by without examining it. I rather enjoy that flaw in his character though so I'd prob'ly go ahead and try explaining.

Anyway, I can't wait to read the rest of this thread to find out how this works out.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,03:10   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 19 2009,01:50)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 19 2009,01:13)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 19 2009,01:08)
But there is only one reason for this theory.  Evolution had to have it or abiogeneis wouldn't work.  Alot of O2 would have spelled disaster.

Yeah, it's all a big conspiracy and there's really no data on this at all, right? That's almost cute. It's so relieving  that this global plot by godless heathens was exposed by a guy using such sophisticated cunning.

Just one more.  Do you think I'm the only one.  I HAVE seen some of the actual research of a scientist--PhD from Harvard,  who did research at Mt. Saint Helens.  i wish they would let that in the schools.

But evolution has no rebuttal in the school's.  It is historical.  It got the minds of scientists back in Darwin's day.  They taught in universities.  Tomorrow's leaders learned under them.  Government endorsed it--funded it, kicked God out of the sophisticated modern age. And now you go to a grade school where you only learn evolution--inference--no God--your an animal, no sin, just respect your fellow man and we won't incarcerate you.

But in every state there are court battles going on with educated people who believe in intelligent design fighting for an equal voice.

Hey! Here I think I can help you. My wife teaches science at a middle school and I'm constantly pressed into lesson plan duty. I'll tell you what, you show me the research and I'll try to work it into a lesson plan. Deal?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,03:25   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,07:32)
I know I bang on about it, but if anyone takes the time to understand the Soai reaction's kinetics it is truly fascinating. If anyone has read Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter (or any of his other stuff about strange loops etc) then it will be immediately obvious how relevant it is. The detail really is fun, it's not just for chemistry geeks like me.

Louis

GEB is not pop science. It is a milestone in understanding. I've had it on my desk for around a year (I read it too :)) and I refer to it constantly as perspective for different elements of work.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,03:26   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,13:33)
Quote (ppb @ Feb. 10 2009,19:08)
 
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,06:01)

You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice.

You know someone has true humility when they have to point it out to you.  :D

Louis, I love reading your posts.  You clearly know what you are talking about, and you seem to really enjoy teaching others.  You have the patience of a saint.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sorry, I appreciate the compliment but I am a horribly impatient and intolerant person. I've just mentioned your comment to my wife, she is sending over a trained psychologist and counsellor. Taking that level of hallucinogenic drugs is not good for you.

Thanks though.

;)

Louis

ETA: Of my many great qualities I think my humility is probably my best one. ;)

Unsupported assertion there.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,03:32   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 19 2009,01:50)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 19 2009,01:13)
 
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 19 2009,01:08)
But there is only one reason for this theory.  Evolution had to have it or abiogeneis wouldn't work.  Alot of O2 would have spelled disaster.

Yeah, it's all a big conspiracy and there's really no data on this at all, right? That's almost cute. It's so relieving  that this global plot by godless heathens was exposed by a guy using such sophisticated cunning.

Just one more.  Do you think I'm the only one.  I HAVE seen some of the actual research of a scientist--PhD from Harvard,  who did research at Mt. Saint Helens.  i wish they would let that in the schools.

But evolution has no rebuttal in the school's.  It is historical.  It got the minds of scientists back in Darwin's day.  They taught in universities.  Tomorrow's leaders learned under them.  Government endorsed it--funded it, kicked God out of the sophisticated modern age. And now you go to a grade school where you only learn evolution--inference--no God--your an animal, no sin, just respect your fellow man and we won't incarcerate you.

But in every state there are court battles going on with educated people who believe in intelligent design fighting for an equal voice.

Got a name for that "Ph.D from Harvard " whose research you want to let in schools? Because uh...there's quite a few people that know the facts on Mt. St. Helens, and it doesn't support anything relevant in regards to any creationist version of things.

By the way, RFJE... contrary to your ignorant opinion, there's also quite a few people on this site that are religious. They're just not dullards about their faith -- as you seem intent on being.

You're implying that faith and evolutionary science are polar opposites, with the science cadre composed solely of godless heathens (" It got the minds of scientists back in Darwin's day.  They taught in universities...    kicked God out of the sophisticated modern age ") and that makes you insulting, too -- so I have no real problem in saying that you're stupid on top of ignorant, RJFE. And yes, I'm aware that there's lots of your ilk about. If you bothered to read up on the site you're on, you'd know that folks here have to deal with liars for Jesus all the time.

The ignorant part of your act could be cured if you wanted, RFJE,  but I'm less confident about the stupid part.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,03:35   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,13:57)
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 10 2009,19:36)
Quote

b) Lack of stratospheric ozone is not a problem because UV radiation is not only destructive. It is also positively useful. Many “complex” molecules exist in space (in conditions of vastly greater UV radiation), not only that but UV can promote certain reactions. For example the formose reaction is positively aided by UV radiation.


Isn't UV also absorped by water?
I always thought that the shorter the wavelenght, the more water the light can pass through before it's filtered out. I tried to find out how deep that is for UV light and I found this list (German) with absorption coefficents for different wavelenght and the layer thickness* after which the intensity is reduced to 1/1000 of the original:

Lambda(nm)     k(1/m)      x(0,001)(m)
=======================================
200           ca. 7            1
250           ca. 1            7
300           ca. 0,2         35
350           ca. 0,2         35
400           ca. 0,06       110
450           ca. 0,02       350
500           ca. 0,025      280
550           ca. 0,05       140
600           ca. 0,2         35
650           ca. 0,32        22
700           ca. 0,65        11
750           ca. 2,6          2,7
800           ca. 2,0          3,5
1000            37            0,19

So, the shorter the wavelength, the deeper the light can reach seems to be true only for the visible light. According to this list UV light can't reach as deep as e.g. blue light.

Does anyone know whether that is true?
Unfortunately, the author of that list states that he found several vastly different absorption coefficents for UV light in the literature and he would provide only a "best guess".


* This isn't exactly a topic I discuss on a daily basis, so I'm not sure whether I use the correct terms. I hope it's still clear what I mean....

Yes water does absorb UV to some extent.

As for how deep different wavelengths of EM radiation can penetrate into bodies of water, I honestly don't know off the top of my head. I'm also not sure about the correlation between wavelength and depth of penetration. A couple of things spring to mind though:

a) Gamma rays, X rays, cosmic radiation etc pass through water. They have very short wavelengths compared to blue light for example.

b) Different materials have different absorption spectra, so there isn't necessarily a linear relationship between wavelength and depth of penetration.

I could be wrong however, I'll nip off and have a read!

Louis

Lots of fish use the UV spectrum in personal markings and choice of same in others.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,04:08   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 11 2009,05:37)
There are also five more relevant things I want to mention before I get into all of this:

a) Just because science may or may not have concrete answer to every question yet does not mean that your (or anyone's) religious explanation is automatically the default answer. Every scientist worth his or her salt will cheerfully admit that there are things we don't yet know.

It also doesn't mean that science has the right answers. It just means that certain explanations for specific phenomena have been ruled out given the qualification that our senses in general can be trusted.

 
Quote

Not knowing something, perhaps just not knowing something yet, is no crime. Not knowing something is not the end of enquiry, it is the beginning. We scientists LIKE not knowing something, it keeps us in a job! Not knowing things is WHY we try to find them out, it is for me why I became a scientist: because there are things (many, many, many, MANY things) I don't know. I don't crave certainty because I know that certainty is not possible, I am merely seeking to reduce the number of things I don' know about.

And so far, science offers the best way of testing what we suspect to discover whether our suspicions are warranted. Science, while it often appears to generate knowledge, does what it does as a methodology through elimination of false hypotheses more than demonstration of correct hypotheses. That's one of those general statements that needs a mountain of explanation but it's a good generalization.

 
Quote


2) We/emotions/feelings/desires are "just" the results of natural processes:

Just the results of biochemistry? JUST? JUST?????? That's a pretty big "just" there my friend! I would suggest that you have no idea about the complexity and quantity of the phenomena you hand wave away with a "just". Anyway, the questions you are asking about thoughts, desires, feelings are simply huge and reduce to one overarching question: Is consciousness the product of the physical and chemical operations of the brain?

The answer to that is very simple: yes.

No, the answer is not simply yes. The answer is, "by all evidence and appearances so far discerned in actually investigating the organism which houses what we call consciousness, it appears to be the case."

 
Quote

How do I know this? Well it's pretty simple to demonstrate that the consciousness can be altered by simple physical or chemical interventions. Don't believe me? Ok, here, take the dose of LSD.

However, the experience may make you question the rest of Louis' post.


And, for the record, Dennett is something of a difficult pill to swallow. Though Consciousness Explained does indeed explain the term Dennett defines as consciousness, my feeling is that he does it by pushing a tremendous amount of his problem outside the recursive level he chooses to address. So, to a metaphysically inclined person, me anyway, Dennett falls drastically short of useful.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,04:41   

RFJE,

What you've done, again, with your previous, long, barely coherent post is what's called quote mining or cherry picking. You've googled a few things in order to find something that you think (wrongly) supports your case. It's spectacularly dishonest and/or stupid.

Not only have you done this very badly (your most recent "chemistry" post is an incoherent mess, it looks like a lunatic wrote it) you have done this with a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter.

I asked you some very simple questions earlier, you have yet to answer them. Do so please. In fact I have asked these questions now not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but five times already. You have had a week to think out answers to them, a week in which you have posted ~4300 words or ~9 pages of A4 in 18 posts. You have tried very, very hard to avoid answering some very very simple questions. Here they are again:

     
Quote
Rather than initially deal with everything you bring up, I'm going to try to do something different from normal and get to the root of your issues. I'd be very grateful of you could answer a few questions for me:

1) For what purpose have you decided to post at AtBC? Are you on a conversion mission or have you come to discuss things in a more adult manner?

2) Precisely what "pernicious beliefs" do "we" spread through the schools and media?

3) Why are those "pernicious beliefs" pernicious? I.e. what damage do they do and how are they evil?

4) What about those "pernicious beliefs" makes them beliefs? I.e. presumably there are aspects of the real world upon which you and I could agree (more on this in a moment). The word belief at least implies that little or no reference to available evidence is made.

5) Is there any piece of well supported, evidence based science which you think we could agree upon? I'm trying to find some utterly uncontroversial, evidence based common ground  we can build a discussion from. At the moment, I think you're talking at people and just starting a nonsensical flame war.


Getting a protein into solution in water is not the same thing as hydrolysis. Hydrolysis is the splitting of a covalent or ionic chemical bond by reaction with water. It's not the same thing as hydration (adding water to a complex) or hydrogenolysis (splitting a bond by adding hydrogen) or any similar sounding word.

Everything you regurgitate in your post I have either already answered here orhere, or is irrelevant. Those "other scientists" don't disagree with me, you just don't understand what they have written nor what I have written. Hence why I have been telling you right from the start that it behoves you to

MINIMALLY INFORM YOURSELF ABOUT A TOPIC***BEFORE***
 BLOVIATING ABOUT IT!

Get it yet?

Since you have:

a) Had ample opportunity to do this (it really doesn't take long to grasp the basics or indeed buy a chemistry textbook or even that other book I recommended and ask relevant, informed questions).

b) Returned like a dog to vomit to your original erroneous and refuted claims.

c) Not improved your mode of argumentation (i.e. you still rely on quote mines, shitty understanding and goalpost moving).

d) Started preaching irrelevant biblical drivel again.

e) Written what you have so blindingly badly I am struggling to make up my mind whether you are simply unintelligent, insane or both, I have decided not to waste any further time on you.

Strike three. You have been plonked into the file marked "mostly ignore plus occasional vituperative mockery".

You can evade this strike in one way and one way only: answer the questions I asked you above honestly and clearly, and begin this discussion from a different point.

There is simply no point if you are going to continue to jump it at a place in the process demonstrably way beyond what you know about the relevant subject, and demonstrably more complex than you seem capable of dealing with.

Au revoir.

Louis

Edits for clarity, some typos, and formatting.

--------------
Bye.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,04:58   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 19 2009,01:08)
 
Quote (raguel @ Feb. 19 2009,00:27)
I haven't seen anyone here dispute the presence of oxygen (the element) on Earth.  Your argument therefore is that water and carbon dioxide would react the same as oxygen (the molecule) simply because they all have oxygen (the atom/element). This is false, and you would have avoided making such an obvious mistake if you took the time to learn Chemistry.

No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying.  I am not saying CO2 and H2O react the same as O or O2.

According to the evolutionary model there was enough O atoms to bind with H (H2O) to make enough water vapor to create the oceans after the earth cooled.  


Oh wow. What a finale. Primitive Earth (She gives up her secrets gladly to those who look) has a bag of oxygen, a bag of hydrogen, a bag of iron and etc to uranium. After she cools, She shakes them all out to see what happens when they mix?
Quote


This is my point.  The MODEL is A THEORY created in someone's mind, and the theory shoots itself in the foot--

Say that out loud where someone can hear you.

Quote
If you've got enough O atoms to make enough H2O vapor to create OCEANS, then you've got alot of oygen.  Who is to say that it wouldn't bind with itself above the surface.  Why does nitrogen have to go all the way under ground and then come out of volcanoes?  It could have just as well stayed above the surface and formed an atmosphere.  Or it could permeate the earth underground and in the atmosphere.
Is that like, but why do you need to pay the electric bill Mommy? I want a new bicycle!
???
Quote

But there is only one reason for this theory.  Evolution had to have it or abiogeneis wouldn't work.  Alot of O2 would have spelled disaster.

omg

Can I be the first to point out that you have taken the phrase 'fractally wrong' into a new dimension?

Wow.

ETA: So, Darwin understood biochemistry? Molecular biology? :facepalm:

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,05:02   

Quote (BWE @ Feb. 19 2009,11:58)
Can I be the first to point out that you have taken the phrase 'fractally wrong' into a new dimension?

I'd be prone to point out that either Louis or Albatrossity2 pinned this rather well-fiting on RFJE already, although I might be mistaken, what with catching on with my ftk thread-reading...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,05:31   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 19 2009,05:02)
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 19 2009,11:58)
Can I be the first to point out that you have taken the phrase 'fractally wrong' into a new dimension?

I'd be prone to point out that either Louis or Albatrossity2 pinned this rather well-fiting on RFJE already, although I might be mistaken, what with catching on with my ftk thread-reading...

Quote (BWE @ Feb. 19 2009,02:23)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 09 2009,22:00)
 
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 09 2009,21:41)
To form protein, the amino acids are linked by dehydration synthesis to form peptide bonds.
---snip---

lots of sciency-sounding blabbering deleted
---unsnip---

Do I get an A for effort guys?

I am always amazed at how an IDiot can take a tiny nano-bit of information, combine it with a preconceived conclusion, and generate vast amounts of tard.

My hat is off to you, sir. You have taken "fractally wrong" to a new dimension.

[snip]
Second, Albitrossity, in what dimension does 'fractally wrong' begin?

[snip]

albitrossity2 had it first i'd seen.

Sorry. Most of my jokes are to myself. I always get them. :)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,05:44   

Quote (BWE @ Feb. 19 2009,10:08)
[SNIP]
Quote


2) We/emotions/feelings/desires are "just" the results of natural processes:

Just the results of biochemistry? JUST? JUST?????? That's a pretty big "just" there my friend! I would suggest that you have no idea about the complexity and quantity of the phenomena you hand wave away with a "just". Anyway, the questions you are asking about thoughts, desires, feelings are simply huge and reduce to one overarching question: Is consciousness the product of the physical and chemical operations of the brain?

The answer to that is very simple: yes.

No, the answer is not simply yes. The answer is, "by all evidence and appearances so far discerned in actually investigating the organism which houses what we call consciousness, it appears to be the case."

[SNIP]

So, simply put "yes", given the standard caveats about the provisional nature of science.

Anyway, thanks for the beer offer BWE, I'll take you up on it sometime (even though there is only one of me, by any reasonable definition!;).

As for the other stuff Let's go on an appropriately random tour:

Contrarian mulberry bush circling is not anything I'm interested in at the moment. We're all aware of the limits of induction, the limits of observation, the limits of rational enquiry. We all know that science is provisional. Not only do we all know it, we admit it openly, honestly, up front and continually. I'm tempted to put a standard philosophical disclaimer in every post just to avoid this tired nit pick coming up every time.

It's an important nit to pick to be sure, but an irritatingly unproductive one in most circumstances. It's also used, dishonestly, by naughty people like creationists to contrast apparent certainty with the productive doubt of science. It's an appeal to common prejudice in that case and logically fallacious crapola that distracts from the discussion at hand. It's a common trick of denialists in all fields used to derail discussion and to hide the fact that the evidence refutes their nonsensical claims.

Quote
And then I'd have to spend 20 pages explaining myself to Louis who never lets a detail go by without examining it. I rather enjoy that flaw in his character though so I'd prob'ly go ahead and try explaining.


FLAW in my character? FLAW? The devil is in the detail my friend! ;)

Quote
GEB is not pop science. It is a milestone in understanding. I've had it on my desk for around a year (I read it too :)) and I refer to it constantly as perspective for different elements of work.


Never said it was pop sci. (and if I ever do say that I don't mean it in a pejorative sense). It's a brilliant book, one I use in exactly the same manner you do.

As for the comment contained in this post. Unsupported assertion? Where? All bioactive compounds have a toxic dose (See measurements of LD50 for examples). Sufficient LSD or whatever can kill you. Getting close to toxic doses in one bash can cause major damage both physical and psychological. Hardly an unsupported assertion merely a result of simple pharmacology. Although I suspect you were making a joke, as indeed was I...

As for things like:

Quote
It also doesn't mean that science has the right answers. It just means that certain explanations for specific phenomena have been ruled out given the qualification that our senses in general can be trusted.


Provisional. Again. See above. Again. Do we have to continually go over this? Again.

And science explicitly does not completely rely on our senses being generally trustworthy. Our senses could be utterly untrustworthy (and indeed in many instances are) and we could (and have) build scientific models that incorporate that fact. We understand how (for example) certain optical illusions work, how various modes of hallucination are induced. More than that the criterion of independent reproducibility in experimental results is explicitly part of science in order to combat the possible untrustworthiness of our senses (and indeed our selves). The whole point of things like this is to try to asymptotically approach perfect objectivity (something that can never be 100% achieved. See: Provisional. AGAIN!;). It is an explicit reference to the untrustworthiness of our senses.

As for the rest, Dennett etc, it's a starting point for RFJE. There are different starting points but I gave him one he could potentially start from. I'm not going to spend my valuable time educating the unwilling or ineducable. Sorry, but despite previous claims to the contrary, I am not a saint. There is no point explaining everything I have read or remember about consciousness to people like RFJE in a message board post, they don't (yet) have the back ground to understand it and this is hardly the place to do it. I'm more than cheerfully happy to hand out a few pointers and deal with honest enquiry but once it gets beyond that and into dealing with people playing silly fucking games involving "team identities" and gainsaying, I am very much less interested. I used to give a shit, now I don't. Things change.

BAH! I am irritated, I have wasted part of my morning posting stuff to Heddle that he evades (on Pharyngula) and posting stuff to a moron (RFJE) who lacks the comprehension of a biscuit.

Forgive me BWE, I do not mean to be/appear terse with you. My apologies if I have been. I think I need a beer. Is it wrong to drink before lunchtime in your office? :) I'm sure I can nip into the lab and knock up something stronger....

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,05:46   

Quote (BWE @ Feb. 19 2009,11:31)
[SNIP]

Sorry. Most of my jokes are to myself. I always get them. :)

No you don't.

{giggle}

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,06:46   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 18 2009,23:43)
A. Just an introductory point:  Could someone solve this equation for me.  2xyz + 6(a - b) - 5x=c
Surely someone could solve this and give me the answer that I'm thinking in my mind...

The vinaigrette, please. What is your primordial soup today?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,06:48   

Wow.  Am I glad that I slept through that tard-torrent!

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,06:51   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 19 2009,05:44)
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 19 2009,10:08)
[SNIP]  
Quote


2) We/emotions/feelings/desires are "just" the results of natural processes:

Just the results of biochemistry? JUST? JUST?????? That's a pretty big "just" there my friend! I would suggest that you have no idea about the complexity and quantity of the phenomena you hand wave away with a "just". Anyway, the questions you are asking about thoughts, desires, feelings are simply huge and reduce to one overarching question: Is consciousness the product of the physical and chemical operations of the brain?

The answer to that is very simple: yes.

No, the answer is not simply yes. The answer is, "by all evidence and appearances so far discerned in actually investigating the organism which houses what we call consciousness, it appears to be the case."

[SNIP]

So, simply put "yes", given the standard caveats about the provisional nature of science.

Right. But I think if you're going to go down the 'Last Thursdayism' route you ought to give it its proper name. After all, it's a perfectly valid, if not particularly useful hypothesis. I've noted a lot of the misunderstandings about science tend to be of the last thursdayism variety.

Quote


Anyway, thanks for the beer offer BWE, I'll take you up on it sometime (even though there is only one of me, by any reasonable definition!).
I don't know about the reasonableness, but the beer offer is one I intend to make an effort to keep.

Quote


As for the other stuff Let's go on an appropriately random tour:

Contrarian mulberry bush circling is not anything I'm interested in at the moment. We're all aware of the limits of induction, the limits of observation, the limits of rational enquiry. We all know that science is provisional. Not only do we all know it, we admit it openly, honestly, up front and continually. I'm tempted to put a standard philosophical disclaimer in every post just to avoid this tired nit pick coming up every time.

It's an important nit to pick to be sure, but an irritatingly unproductive one in most circumstances.
Because you are assessing value as usefulness (I think). That really is a perspective issue even though it's a common perspective. The reason I pick that nit is that it needs to be explicit that IF usefulness or accuracy count, science is the way to go. Inspiration comes from a different source. Science is a methodology for testing hypotheses, not a source of inspiration. The source, if it by chance were found occasionally in science, is found in connections attached to those made by others during the analysis phase. (Rather than edit that last sentence to try to tease some sense out of it, I decided to type this whole long explanation about how there might be some sense in it even though I chose not to edit it. :))

Quote
It's also used, dishonestly, by naughty people like creationists to contrast apparent certainty with the productive doubt of science. It's an appeal to common prejudice in that case and logically fallacious crapola that distracts from the discussion at hand. It's a common trick of denialists in all fields used to derail discussion and to hide the fact that the evidence refutes their nonsensical claims.
Evidence refutes positive claims. Once you make a claim of causality, it is open to scientific inquiry. Absent that claim, it is just thought.

That's the whole science and faith rift thread thing again, isn't it?

Quote

Quote
And then I'd have to spend 20 pages explaining myself to Louis who never lets a detail go by without examining it. I rather enjoy that flaw in his character though so I'd prob'ly go ahead and try explaining.


FLAW in my character? FLAW? The devil is in the detail my friend! ;)
Flaw is my pet word for naughty little schoolgirl charm.

Quote
Quote
GEB is not pop science. It is a milestone in understanding. I've had it on my desk for around a year (I read it too :)) and I refer to it constantly as perspective for different elements of work.


Never said it was pop sci. (and if I ever do say that I don't mean it in a pejorative sense). It's a brilliant book, one I use in exactly the same manner you do.

Hmm. I squoze too much in there. I meant two things.

1. If you want an easier read, GEB ain't it. Try Emergence by Steven Johnson.
2. Ok, just checking on how you were classifying it. :)

Quote
As for the comment contained in this post. Unsupported assertion? Where? All bioactive compounds have a toxic dose (See measurements of LD50 for examples). Sufficient LSD or whatever can kill you. Getting close to toxic doses in one bash can cause major damage both physical and psychological. Hardly an unsupported assertion merely a result of simple pharmacology. Although I suspect you were making a joke, as indeed was I...
There really is a toxic dose for LSD? I mean, there's a toxic dose of bananas too... Anyway, yes, joking a bit.

Quote
As for things like:

 
Quote
It also doesn't mean that science has the right answers. It just means that certain explanations for specific phenomena have been ruled out given the qualification that our senses in general can be trusted.


Provisional. Again. See above. Again. Do we have to continually go over this? Again.
I think it's a source of confusion though. I was trying to help our man out.

Quote
And science explicitly does not completely rely on our senses being generally trustworthy.
It relies on our senses being able to read the output of devices which are themselves extensions of our senses. That's all I meant. If we can trust that trees have leaves generally, for example...

Quote
[snip]

As for the rest, Dennett etc, it's a starting point for RFJE. There are different starting points but I gave him one he could potentially start from. I'm not going to spend my valuable time educating the unwilling or ineducable.
Once again, I was trying to help our man out there. Dennett is a fierce way to enter the conceptual landscape.

Quote
Sorry, but despite previous claims to the contrary, I am not a saint. [snip]


Cool. I erased the word and the question mark. :)
Quote


BAH! I am irritated, I have wasted part of my morning posting stuff to Heddle that he evades (on Pharyngula) and posting stuff to a moron (RFJE) who lacks the comprehension of a biscuit.

Forgive me BWE, I do not mean to be/appear terse with you. My apologies if I have been. I think I need a beer. Is it wrong to drink before lunchtime in your office? :) I'm sure I can nip into the lab and knock up something stronger....

Louis

well drink is the solution to many problems.

ETA: Edited the shit out of this post.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,06:56   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 19 2009,13:46)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 18 2009,23:43)
A. Just an introductory point:  Could someone solve this equation for me.  2xyz + 6(a - b) - 5x=c
Surely someone could solve this and give me the answer that I'm thinking in my mind...

The vinaigrette, please. What is your primordial soup today?

Awww, goody, I find teh ultimate tool!

tard translator

Quote
A!!11!1 WTF LOL JUST AN INTRODUC2RY POINT CUD SOM3ONA SOLVE THES EQUATION FOR ME!!!1!! 2XYZ + 6(A - B) - 5X=C
SURELEY SOMEON3 CUD SOLV3 THES AND GIEV ME DA ANSWAR TAHT IMM THINKNG IN MAH MIND.!1111!!1!!!!!1!!!11 OMG WTF LOL


I gotta luv teh intretube!

Shame there's no "stupid to english" translator. It could help a lot around here...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,07:06   

I added a bunch to my last post.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,07:26   

Quote (BWE @ Feb. 19 2009,12:51)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 19 2009,05:44)
 
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 19 2009,10:08)
[SNIP]    
Quote


2) We/emotions/feelings/desires are "just" the results of natural processes:

Just the results of biochemistry? JUST? JUST?????? That's a pretty big "just" there my friend! I would suggest that you have no idea about the complexity and quantity of the phenomena you hand wave away with a "just". Anyway, the questions you are asking about thoughts, desires, feelings are simply huge and reduce to one overarching question: Is consciousness the product of the physical and chemical operations of the brain?

The answer to that is very simple: yes.

No, the answer is not simply yes. The answer is, "by all evidence and appearances so far discerned in actually investigating the organism which houses what we call consciousness, it appears to be the case."

[SNIP]

So, simply put "yes", given the standard caveats about the provisional nature of science.

Right. But I think if you're going to go down the 'Last Thursdayism' route you ought to give it its proper name. After all, it's a perfectly valid, if not particularly useful hypothesis. I've noted a lot of the misunderstandings about science tend to be of the last thursdayism variety.

[SNIP]

BWE,

Last Thursdayism? Great googly moogly!

The point with Last Thursdayism is that it is UNREASONABLE (and illogical, what about Last Wednesdayism?) scepticism derived (in part) from the provisional nature of science. Nothing I mentioned was unreasonable. The answer you took issue with was a short "yes" answer, which btw IS the answer to the question RFJE asked. I didn't feel any need to qualify it with comments re: the provisional nature of science, YOU did. My point was that to paste these philosophical caveats onto ever post gets in the way. We all know about the limitations etc, we don't need to constantly harp on about them as some kind of disclaimer which is precisely what you did, and precisely what I took issue with.

ETA: Yes I agree that for the sake of accuracy and completeness limitations are vital to bear in mind, but when you're dealing with someone like RFJE who has yet to put one intellectual foot in front of the other without kicking himself in the bollocks repeatedly, harping on about the limits of induction and observation (for example) confuse the issue, not illuminate it.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,07:58   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 19 2009,07:26)
 
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 19 2009,12:51)
   
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 19 2009,05:44)
     
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 19 2009,10:08)
[SNIP]      
Quote


2) We/emotions/feelings/desires are "just" the results of natural processes:

Just the results of biochemistry? JUST? JUST?????? That's a pretty big "just" there my friend! I would suggest that you have no idea about the complexity and quantity of the phenomena you hand wave away with a "just". Anyway, the questions you are asking about thoughts, desires, feelings are simply huge and reduce to one overarching question: Is consciousness the product of the physical and chemical operations of the brain?

The answer to that is very simple: yes.

No, the answer is not simply yes. The answer is, "by all evidence and appearances so far discerned in actually investigating the organism which houses what we call consciousness, it appears to be the case."

[SNIP]

So, simply put "yes", given the standard caveats about the provisional nature of science.

Right. But I think if you're going to go down the 'Last Thursdayism' route you ought to give it its proper name. After all, it's a perfectly valid, if not particularly useful hypothesis. I've noted a lot of the misunderstandings about science tend to be of the last thursdayism variety.

[SNIP]

BWE,

Last Thursdayism? Great googly moogly!

The point with Last Thursdayism is that it is UNREASONABLE (and illogical, what about Last Wednesdayism?) scepticism derived (in part) from the provisional nature of science.

Hmmm. For me the point is not that it's unreasonable, but that it doesn't allow for any forward thinking. It's the only valid hypothesis which contradicts the evidence so far gathered for our tectonic and biotic history.

It's just that it's useless. I differentiated it to highlight the alternative for our boy here.If you want to deny the evidence we've gathered so far, you have to deny the senses that gathered it and following that logic to it's logical end, you'd have to deny any god that you learned about from others or claimed a sensory experience with.

It matters. Either we can trust that 'out there' follows rules, or we can't believe any of our ideas, not even ones about god. As soon as you make a positive claim, poof, make a smaller gap. Rules are patterns. We do pretty well with patterns.

 
Quote
Nothing I mentioned was unreasonable. The answer you took issue with was a short "yes" answer, which btw IS the answer to the question RFJE asked. I didn't feel any need to qualify it with comments re: the provisional nature of science, YOU did. My point was that to paste these philosophical caveats onto ever post gets in the way. We all know about the limitations etc, we don't need to constantly harp on about them as some kind of disclaimer which is precisely what you did, and precisely what I took issue with.
Once again, you have no need to qualify. I did it for the benefit of the new sailor RFJE. I wanted him to know that what's happened is not that science replaced a provincial sky-daddy god, but rather science eliminated the interventionist god hypothesis.

I know that you already know that. You also know the difference between a peptide and an amide. I don't worry about you. I'm just trying to help the hapless foil with his disconnect problem.


 
Quote


ETA: Yes I agree that for the sake of accuracy and completeness limitations are vital to bear in mind, but when you're dealing with someone like RFJE who has yet to put one intellectual foot in front of the other without kicking himself in the bollocks repeatedly, harping on about the limits of induction and observation (for example) confuse the issue, not illuminate it.

Louis
They're his bollocks. :)[/quote]
They're his bollocks. :)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,08:11   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 19 2009,02:08)
Quote (raguel @ Feb. 19 2009,00:27)
I haven't seen anyone here dispute the presence of oxygen (the element) on Earth.  Your argument therefore is that water and carbon dioxide would react the same as oxygen (the molecule) simply because they all have oxygen (the atom/element). This is false, and you would have avoided making such an obvious mistake if you took the time to learn Chemistry.

No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying.  I am not saying CO2 and H2O react the same as O or O2.

According to the evolutionary model there was enough O atoms to bind with H (H2O) to make enough water vapor to create the oceans after the earth cooled.  

This is my point.  The MODEL is A THEORY created in someone's mind, and the theory shoots itself in the foot--If you've got enough O atoms to make enough H2O vapor to create OCEANS, then you've got alot of oygen.  Who is to say that it wouldn't bind with itself above the surface.  Why does nitrogen have to go all the way under ground and then come out of volcanoes?  It could have just as well stayed above the surface and formed an atmosphere.  Or it could permeate the earth underground and in the atmosphere.

But there is only one reason for this theory.  Evolution had to have it or abiogeneis wouldn't work.  Alot of O2 would have spelled disaster.

RFJE,
I'm not an expert, but the prevailing theory is that most of the water on earth was delivered after the earth formed, most likely from collisions with comets or asteroids.  It was not manufactured on site.  Click here for an article that talks about it.  

Also, theories about the formation of the earth and its oceans are not part of the theory of evolution.  It is cosmology, not biology, although it can provide information that is helpful in understanding abiogenesis.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,08:27   

Quote (BWE @ Feb. 19 2009,13:58)
[SNIP]

I don't worry about you. I'm just trying to help the hapless foil with his disconnect problem.

[SNIP]

Help him? All Hallowed FSM mounting the IPU in a special way, NO!

Don't confuse an already confused person with help! He's blathering inanely about at least five topics that I can count, none of which he has even the remotest clue about. Introducing philosophy is only going to make things worse.  

I think, if there is any conversational mileage to be had from RFJE other than hilarity and abuse, that we have to get him to sloooooooowwwww down from his Amphetamine Jesus fuelled ignorant rantings and find a place which we can all agree on. A starting point of consensus if you will. I'd love him to answer those questions if he could. I doubt he will, and thus will remain in my personal "three strikes" file with other delusional muppets.

If he can't manage to work a reasonable consensus point then there's no hope. It's one thing we should have done with Denial Smith. Having idiots like that quote mine and cherry pick the lit when they can barely understand it is a waste of time. Get back to basics, help them from the ground up. That way at least a more productive discussion MIGHT arise.

Of course we could also go down the standard "hit them with sticks until they do something funny" route. It has worked for ages and is occasionally amusing.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,08:36   

I agree with Louis -= step by step, slow and slower is the way to go.  As if he were a child.  A slow child.  You build the skyscraper from the base, etc...

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,08:38   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 19 2009,08:27)
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 19 2009,13:58)
[SNIP]

I don't worry about you. I'm just trying to help the hapless foil with his disconnect problem.

[SNIP]

Help him? All Hallowed FSM mounting the IPU in a special way, NO!

Don't confuse an already confused person with help! He's blathering inanely about at least five topics that I can count, none of which he has even the remotest clue about. Introducing philosophy is only going to make things worse.  

I think, if there is any conversational mileage to be had from RFJE other than hilarity and abuse, that we have to get him to sloooooooowwwww down from his Amphetamine Jesus fuelled ignorant rantings and find a place which we can all agree on. A starting point of consensus if you will. I'd love him to answer those questions if he could. I doubt he will, and thus will remain in my personal "three strikes" file with other delusional muppets.

If he can't manage to work a reasonable consensus point then there's no hope. It's one thing we should have done with Denial Smith. Having idiots like that quote mine and cherry pick the lit when they can barely understand it is a waste of time. Get back to basics, help them from the ground up. That way at least a more productive discussion MIGHT arise.

Of course we could also go down the standard "hit them with sticks until they do something funny" route. It has worked for ages and is occasionally amusing.

Louis

I hardly ever like to hit them with sticks. Did you ever catch the 'debate' I did with afdave at dawkins forum? I seriously didn't mean to hit him with sticks. I even posted my next week's post before his was due on a blog so he would know what rebuttals I was going to use to his arguments before he made them.

No, the blinders, I believe, begin to unfasten at the first set of assumptions. Those answered by Descartes. First, I am. Second, it is. Third, things we must assume in order to support the first two.

Then to Francis Bacon and forward. I'm thinking that pretty much the whole of the following enlightenment was somehow missed in the mythos of a certain segment of society. Without a set of common frames, the language never connects.

I'm not sure if it's possible to step outside your mythos without truly being insane.

ETA: Credit to Robert Persig for that last idea. It's stuck with me for years.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,09:00   

PhD creationist from Harvard.

That would be Kurt Wise.

I know another guy like Mayberry RFD who says things like "Darwinism doesn't explain thermodynamics."  All very sciency sounding.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,09:06   

Quote (BWE @ Feb. 19 2009,14:38)
[SNIP]

I hardly ever like to hit them with sticks. Did you ever catch the 'debate' I did with afdave at dawkins forum? I seriously didn't mean to hit him with sticks. I even posted my next week's post before his was due on a blog so he would know what rebuttals I was going to use to his arguments before he made them.

No, the blinders, I believe, begin to unfasten at the first set of assumptions. Those answered by Descartes. First, I am. Second, it is. Third, things we must assume in order to support the first two.

Then to Francis Bacon and forward. I'm thinking that pretty much the whole of the following enlightenment was somehow missed in the mythos of a certain segment of society. Without a set of common frames, the language never connects.

I'm not sure if it's possible to step outside your mythos without truly being insane.

ETA: Credit to Robert Persig for that last idea. It's stuck with me for years.

Oh I agree that basic philosophy is on the menu, but RFJE ain't even in the restaurant yet. He's sat outside in the gutter playing with his peepee and spurting great impotent jizzy chunks of non-sequiturs and bible quotes everywhere. No civilised restaurant will take him.

Hose him down, stand him up, whack a shirt and tie on him, get him to a position where he can read the menu and THEN introduce philosophy (John Cleese: Conversation for two?).

Louis

P.S. I saw the BWE/AFD debate, it was funny.

--------------
Bye.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,09:18   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 19 2009,09:06)
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 19 2009,14:38)
[SNIP]

I hardly ever like to hit them with sticks. Did you ever catch the 'debate' I did with afdave at dawkins forum? I seriously didn't mean to hit him with sticks. I even posted my next week's post before his was due on a blog so he would know what rebuttals I was going to use to his arguments before he made them.

No, the blinders, I believe, begin to unfasten at the first set of assumptions. Those answered by Descartes. First, I am. Second, it is. Third, things we must assume in order to support the first two.

Then to Francis Bacon and forward. I'm thinking that pretty much the whole of the following enlightenment was somehow missed in the mythos of a certain segment of society. Without a set of common frames, the language never connects.

I'm not sure if it's possible to step outside your mythos without truly being insane.

ETA: Credit to Robert Persig for that last idea. It's stuck with me for years.

Oh I agree that basic philosophy is on the menu, but RFJE ain't even in the restaurant yet. He's sat outside in the gutter playing with his peepee and spurting great impotent jizzy chunks of non-sequiturs and bible quotes everywhere. No civilised restaurant will take him.

Hose him down, stand him up, whack a shirt and tie on him, get him to a position where he can read the menu and THEN introduce philosophy (John Cleese: Conversation for two?).

Louis

P.S. I saw the BWE/AFD debate, it was funny.

*wipes tears of laughter away

Well, I just wanted to help him out. He looked terribly outnumbered. Maybe, could I just do a little woo involving fractals or the uncertainty principle or something?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,09:24   

Quote (BWE @ Feb. 19 2009,15:18)
[SNIP QUOTE]

*wipes tears of laughter away

Well, I just wanted to help him out. He looked terribly outnumbered. Maybe, could I just do a little woo involving fractals or the uncertainty principle or something?

LOL You're too contrarian for your own good sometimes! Help him? Thus far it isn't possible to help him. Tempt him towards some help with shiny treats perhaps, other than that? Nope.

As for woo involving fractals and the uncertainty principle? Naaaah above his pay grade. Try the dinosaurs were planted by god as a test of faith. More his kinda thing. Perhaps certain works of Hanna Barbera as a documentary of prehistory might also be appropriate.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,09:46   

If emotions are not controlled by bio-chemical processes, would someone please explain why the wife and our three teenage girls all make me spend one week at the bar.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,09:49   

Duh. Who ate the fruit? It's not biochemical feedback, it's voo doo. Not the same as Vee Dee.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,10:00   

Steve Austin is the ICR's guy on Mt. Saint Helens, but his Ph.D. was from Penn State, not Harvard.

I recall an amusing online exchange between an antievolutionist extolling Austin's analysis of some underwater photos taken at MSH and a geologist who disputed the claims. As it transpired, the geologist, Marty Leipzig, happened to be the guy who *took* most of the photos in question.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
JonF



Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,10:13   

But neither Austin nor Wise were ever "evolutionists". Therefore neither of them is the PhD to which RFJE refers. Right?

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,10:28   

Quote (JonF @ Feb. 19 2009,10:13)
But neither Austin nor Wise were ever "evolutionists". Therefore neither of them is the PhD to which RFJE refers. Right?

Since Refred had gotten exactly none of his facts straight so far, why would you expect that he did that this time?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,10:54   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 19 2009,16:28)
Quote (JonF @ Feb. 19 2009,10:13)
But neither Austin nor Wise were ever "evolutionists". Therefore neither of them is the PhD to which RFJE refers. Right?

Since Refred had gotten exactly none of his facts straight so far, why would you expect that he did that this time?

[SARCASM]

Oh I don't know. I just went for a pee and my willy dissolved right off.

Now I'll have to grow a whole new willy. Luckily as I know now that, contrary to all known evidence everywhere, the peptide bond cannot be formed in water and proteins just collapse with a drop of H2O, I'll make my new willy in toluene.

[/SARCASM]

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,11:13   

With all this talk of water, why don't we talk about The Flood?

Some lady told me this Walt Brown fella has some really interesting ideas.

   
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,11:45   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 19 2009,02:31)
Good night.  Look friends, i respect your knowledge, though you don't respect mine.  It's okay though, because you see I don't have one doubt there's a God, cause He's in my heart, and He's in my best friend's and in my wife's too.  You can tell where He lives because there's a difference in their life.  AND HE CREATED YOU IN HIS IMAGE--you're not an animal.

Get this.  Hypothetically speaking, if God is a Spirit as the Bible says, you have no way of finding Him by natural means.  He's in another dimension.  It's only through your spirit--your heart that you can find Him.  You can ask Him to show you, if you really want to know sincerely.  Not a hand on the hips "God if your real then do this."  But sincere seeking on the knees.  He'll show you when he's  ready.

If I get on my knees god will pull down his zipper and offer me the big one?

No thanks.

BTW: if god wants me on my knees why did he give me arthritis?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,11:50   

Quote (BWE @ Feb. 19 2009,03:23)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 09 2009,22:00)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 09 2009,21:41)
To form protein, the amino acids are linked by dehydration synthesis to form peptide bonds.
---snip---

lots of sciency-sounding blabbering deleted
---unsnip---

Do I get an A for effort guys?

I am always amazed at how an IDiot can take a tiny nano-bit of information, combine it with a preconceived conclusion, and generate vast amounts of tard.

My hat is off to you, sir. You have taken "fractally wrong" to a new dimension.

First, Louis, you are an astounding bunch of people. If I ever get the chance to meet you, I'd like to get you drunk as shit and listen to you tell stories. My hat is off to you sir.

Second, Albitrossity, in what dimension does 'fractally wrong' begin?

Third, I've been away too long.

Fourth, RJFE, do you know what a chloroplast is? Just checking first. I don't want to assume anything.

I will return.
I will return.
I'll come back
for the tardidity...


--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2324
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,14:36   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 18 2009,23:08)
According to the evolutionary model there was enough O atoms to bind with H (H2O) to make enough water vapor to create the oceans after the earth cooled.  

This is my point.  The MODEL is A THEORY created in someone's mind, and the theory shoots itself in the foot--If you've got enough O atoms to make enough H2O vapor to create OCEANS, then you've got alot of oygen.  Who is to say that it wouldn't bind with itself above the surface.  Why does nitrogen have to go all the way under ground and then come out of volcanoes?  It could have just as well stayed above the surface and formed an atmosphere.  Or it could permeate the earth underground and in the atmosphere.

But there is only one reason for this theory.  Evolution had to have it or abiogeneis wouldn't work.  Alot of O2 would have spelled disaster.

There is probably no point in trying to educate you, but the water was already water. The most common gas in the universe is hydrogen. It is the most common atom of ordinary matter in the universe. Nearly every atom of oxygen ever created in the interior of a star becomes bound to hydrogen as a water molecule. In an interesting result, it was shown that high end UV light will generate ozone when it strikes ice. Up to 20% of the Earth's current ozone could have been supplied this way in the late Hadean. (I doubt it, but it is possible).


1) Composition of the Hadean/early Archean atmosphere.

The key references here are:

Feng Tian, Owen B. Toon, Alexander A. Pavlov, and H. De Sterck
2005 "Hydrogen-Rich Early Earth Atmosphere" Science 13 May 2005; 308: 1014-1017; published online 7 April

Genda, Hidenori & Abe, Yutaka
2003 “Survival of a proto-atmosphere through the stage of giant impacts: the mechanical aspects” Icarus 164, 149-162 (2003).

Holland, Heinrich D.
1999 “When did the Earth’s atmosphere become oxic? A Reply.” The Geochemical News #100: 20-22 (see Ohmoto 1997 )

Kasting, J. F., J. L. Siefert,
2002 “Life and the Evolution of Earth's Atmosphere” Science 296:1066

Pepin, R. O.
1997 "Evolution of Earth's Noble Gases: Consequences of Assuming Hydrodynamic Loss Driven by Giant Impact" Icarus 126, 148-156 (1997).

Wilde, Simon A., John W. Valley, William H. Peck, Collin M. Graham
2001 “Evidence from detrital zircons for the existance of contenental crust and oceans on Earth 4.4 Gyr ago” Nature (letters) Vol 409:175-181


There are others, but anyone reading those above will get the basics. The result is that there was a reducing atmosphere, and ocean system with highly reducing oases. A recent paper:

Rosing, Minik T. and Robert Frei
2003 U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland – indications of >3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis" Earth and Planetary Science Letters, online 6 December 03

presents data that suggest there were very early oxygenic life forms in marine basins that most likely (to me anyway) were wiped out.

So, with a reduced atmosphere and ocean system, a shallow, hot crust and a UV rich, "cold" sun, we can ask the next question which is,

2) What was the source for "organic" molecules?

Edited by Dr.GH on Feb. 19 2009,12:37

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,14:43   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 19 2009,01:08)
Quote (raguel @ Feb. 19 2009,00:27)
I haven't seen anyone here dispute the presence of oxygen (the element) on Earth.  Your argument therefore is that water and carbon dioxide would react the same as oxygen (the molecule) simply because they all have oxygen (the atom/element). This is false, and you would have avoided making such an obvious mistake if you took the time to learn Chemistry.


No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying.  I am not saying CO2 and H2O react the same as O or O2.

According to the evolutionary model there was enough O atoms to bind with H (H2O) to make enough water vapor to create the oceans after the earth cooled.  

This is my point.  The MODEL is A THEORY created in someone's mind, and the theory shoots itself in the foot--If you've got enough O atoms to make enough H2O vapor to create OCEANS, then you've got alot of oygen.  Who is to say that it wouldn't bind with itself above the surface.  

The banded iron formations, that's who.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2082
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,17:14   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Feb. 19 2009,14:43)
 
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 19 2009,01:08)
 
Quote (raguel @ Feb. 19 2009,00:27)
I haven't seen anyone here dispute the presence of oxygen (the element) on Earth.  Your argument therefore is that water and carbon dioxide would react the same as oxygen (the molecule) simply because they all have oxygen (the atom/element). This is false, and you would have avoided making such an obvious mistake if you took the time to learn Chemistry.


No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying.  I am not saying CO2 and H2O react the same as O or O2.

According to the evolutionary model there was enough O atoms to bind with H (H2O) to make enough water vapor to create the oceans after the earth cooled.  

This is my point.  The MODEL is A THEORY created in someone's mind, and the theory shoots itself in the foot--If you've got enough O atoms to make enough H2O vapor to create OCEANS, then you've got alot of oygen.  Who is to say that it wouldn't bind with itself above the surface.  

The banded iron formations, that's who.

Don't try to fool our friend with your godless Darwinist Periodic Table-based theories!

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,18:58   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Feb. 19 2009,14:43)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 19 2009,01:08)
Quote (raguel @ Feb. 19 2009,00:27)
I haven't seen anyone here dispute the presence of oxygen (the element) on Earth.  Your argument therefore is that water and carbon dioxide would react the same as oxygen (the molecule) simply because they all have oxygen (the atom/element). This is false, and you would have avoided making such an obvious mistake if you took the time to learn Chemistry.


No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying.  I am not saying CO2 and H2O react the same as O or O2.

According to the evolutionary model there was enough O atoms to bind with H (H2O) to make enough water vapor to create the oceans after the earth cooled.  

This is my point.  The MODEL is A THEORY created in someone's mind, and the theory shoots itself in the foot--If you've got enough O atoms to make enough H2O vapor to create OCEANS, then you've got alot of oygen.  Who is to say that it wouldn't bind with itself above the surface.  

The banded iron formations, that's who.

I liked the idea of little baggies of elements all in separate molecules but not bonded yet:
Quote

Oh wow. What a finale. Primitive Earth (She gives up her secrets gladly to those who look) has a bag of oxygen, a bag of hydrogen, a bag of iron and etc to uranium. After she cools, She shakes them all out to see what happens when they mix?


Somehow it makes me think of a blog post that will be up at amused muse soon.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,19:27   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 19 2009,01:08)
Quote (raguel @ Feb. 19 2009,00:27)
I haven't seen anyone here dispute the presence of oxygen (the element) on Earth.  Your argument therefore is that water and carbon dioxide would react the same as oxygen (the molecule) simply because they all have oxygen (the atom/element). This is false, and you would have avoided making such an obvious mistake if you took the time to learn Chemistry.

No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying.  I am not saying CO2 and H2O react the same as O or O2.

O RLY? Then what's this supposed to mean:

Quote
The oxygen catastrophe  www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/precambian/proterastrat.html
The first "pollution crisis" hit the Earth about 2.2 billion years ago. Several pieces of evidence -- the presence of iron oxides in paleosols (fossil soils), the appearance of "red beds" containing metal oxides, and others -- point to a fairly rapid increase in levels of oxygen in the atmosphere at about this time.

This is a non-deduction.  Deduction requires the ruling out of all other possibilities.  It is circumstantial evidence.  The oxides could have been caused by water.  You know creationist would stick this in their model too.  Another scenario built on a variable.

** I have also  read about how some believe iron deposits show evidence of O2.  Fe++ to Fe+++ (are these ions or what, I really need to take chemistry, so sue me).  This is an admitted hypothesis.  Again water is a possibility.





Quote
According to the evolutionary model there was enough O atoms to bind with H (H2O) to make enough water vapor to create the oceans after the earth cooled.

This is my point.  The MODEL is A THEORY created in someone's mind, and the theory shoots itself in the foot--If you've got enough O atoms to make enough H2O vapor to create OCEANS, then you've got alot of oygen.  Who is to say that it wouldn't bind with itself above the surface.  Why does nitrogen have to go all the way under ground and then come out of volcanoes?  It could have just as well stayed above the surface and formed an atmosphere.  Or it could permeate the earth underground and in the atmosphere.

But there is only one reason for this theory.  Evolution had to have it or abiogeneis wouldn't work.  Alot of O2 would have spelled disaster.


Yeah, this is a problem. If only there was a field of study in which we could determine experimentally why molecules react the way they do. That way we could predict what products would form, based on initial conditions. I propose we name this new field "chemistry".

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,19:51   

Quote (raguel @ Feb. 19 2009,17:27)
Yeah, this is a problem. If only there was a field of study in which we could determine experimentally why molecules react the way they do. That way we could predict what products would form, based on initial conditions. I propose we name this new field "chemistry".

Or what if we could look out into the universe around us, and see other solar systems in various stages of formation ? We could call it "astronomy"!

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,20:08   

Quote (Reed @ Feb. 19 2009,19:51)
Quote (raguel @ Feb. 19 2009,17:27)
Yeah, this is a problem. If only there was a field of study in which we could determine experimentally why molecules react the way they do. That way we could predict what products would form, based on initial conditions. I propose we name this new field "chemistry".

Or what if we could look out into the universe around us, and see other solar systems in various stages of formation ? We could call it "astronomy"!

You young people and your new-fangled notions...
Burn the witches!!!

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,22:42   

T. P. Hamilton wrote:

Quote
The banded iron formations, that's who.


(Does his best Inspector Clueseau imitation)
That is what I have been saying, you fool!

(no offense, btw)

:)     :)      :)      :)

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,22:52   

bwaha

i wish he would answer loose's questionnaire/boyfriend application.  t'would be quite the veritable hoot.  

did anyone see the "lying for jesus" Law and Order last night?  replete with rapture tardery and muslim-jew conspiracy?  hi-larious.  i think they even poked the creationists a few times.  i swear on the names of your gods I thought of this thread.

which one of y'all is RJFE again?  i can't keep track of the puppets.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,10:03   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 19 2009,02:31)
I have to concur with others in the absence of any confirmation from RFJE of a statement from Louis that's actually at issue -- "hydrolysis" and "water solubility" are two different things.

Mr. Wesley,

Just a side note of thanks for showing that two people can disagree agreeably.  If I were neutral on this issue, i would have my ears open to you more than to many on this site.  I sincerely wish we could put down our swords.

Please forgive me as I have limited time to read the entire thread.  I got the impression in this thread that many of you were closed to the idea that water would have hindered or stopped abiogenesis.  Part of of it is my fault as I gave wrong data from my source, which has been corrected.

That was part of the initial arguement--that water would have stopped spontaneous generation.  

I guess part of the problem is that hydrolysis and would be a chemical reaction on existing proteins, and the context of abiogenesis is formation in an uncontrolled setting, which has never been observed.  

However, on water solubilty--Mr. Wesley, couldn't that be a possibility, as far as hindering the chemical processes before they even get started.  Again, I realize that we're using a principle on formed proteins to argue against formation, but it seems that is all we have since we haven't observed it.

To really be a theory shouldn't abiogenesis be a testable hypothesis?  It has been tested and has not passed the test, or it has never found the right ingredients to make it happen. Isn't true science supposed to abandon or adjust the hypothesis if experimentation shows it to fail?  

Obviously life can not be produced through the context of Miller's experiment, even with intelligent interference.  I understand the thinking that you can not just give up  and say it couldn't happen, but then that forces you to BELIEVE  that abiogenesis can happen by random forces of atomic particles.  And that one day (as I have people say) you will find the secret.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,10:30   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,16:03)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 19 2009,02:31)
I have to concur with others in the absence of any confirmation from RFJE of a statement from Louis that's actually at issue -- "hydrolysis" and "water solubility" are two different things.

Mr. Wesley,

Just a side note of thanks for showing that two people can disagree agreeably.  If I were neutral on this issue, i would have my ears open to you more than to many on this site.  I sincerely wish we could put down our swords.

Please forgive me as I have limited time to read the entire thread.  I got the impression in this thread that many of you were closed to the idea that water would have hindered or stopped abiogenesis.  Part of of it is my fault as I gave wrong data from my source, which has been corrected.

That was part of the initial arguement--that water would have stopped spontaneous generation.  

I guess part of the problem is that hydrolysis and would be a chemical reaction on existing proteins, and the context of abiogenesis is formation in an uncontrolled setting, which has never been observed.  

However, on water solubilty--Mr. Wesley, couldn't that be a possibility, as far as hindering the chemical processes before they even get started.  Again, I realize that we're using a principle on formed proteins to argue against formation, but it seems that is all we have since we haven't observed it.

To really be a theory shouldn't abiogenesis be a testable hypothesis?  It has been tested and has not passed the test, or it has never found the right ingredients to make it happen. Isn't true science supposed to abandon or adjust the hypothesis if experimentation shows it to fail?  

Obviously life can not be produced through the context of Miller's experiment, even with intelligent interference.  I understand the thinking that you can not just give up  and say it couldn't happen, but then that forces you to BELIEVE  that abiogenesis can happen by random forces of atomic particles.  And that one day (as I have people say) you will find the secret.

FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

RFJE,

A) Wesley's statement does not mean what you think it means (AFAICT).

B) Water is NOT a problem for the formation of amide bonds (and hence polypeptides). I can take you into the lab, mix the chemicals together in front of your eyes IN WATER and make a new dipeptide. I can then take this dipeptide and do the same reaction and make a tetrapeptide. I can take the tetrapeptide and make an octopeptide, I can take the octapeptide......ALL IN WATER. In fact it's so simple I can get a machine to do it.

Aqueous peptide synthesis has been around for decades. People do this in the lab on a daily basis. The fact that you don't know this is NOT a point in favour of your ridiculous claims about abiogenesis.

You are confusing multiple issues because you know nothing about chemistry and cannot be bothered to alter that. Try to read something relevant for a modicum of understanding. You want people to put down their swords then stop being an intellectually dishonest, vacuous jackass. I supplied you with the basic means to minimally educate yourself about a topic. Do so. Your ignorance does not equal evidence. Returning like a dog to vomit to a nonsensical claim that is ONLY derived from your ignorance of a topic does not constitute "civil intellectual argument". It constitutes wilfully ignorant refusal to abandon a claim in the face of contrary evidence. It is annoying and certainly neither civil, nor intellectual, nor argument.

Abiogenesis is a hugely complex field of science, not "one theory". It is certainly not amenable to "one simple experiment". Of course you'd know this if you bothered to get off your arse and actually do the leg work in the library. Your whines about Miller-Urey type experiments/abiogenesis are nothing more than "Prove biology in one experiment" or "prove physics in one experiment" you are asking for one experiment to support an entire field of study which covers disparate phenomena. No one expects to make "life in a jar" (unless you're talking about synthetic viruses/bacteria, and even THAT is not a simple "one experiment" type scenario).

You are waving your hands about on a topic you are not sufficiently informed to discuss. Inform yourself. People here, myself included, are willing to help very nicely. What we, and I think I can speak for the majority on this one, are NOT willing to do is educate the utterly unwilling nutters who frequent this debate and repeatedly deal with their arcane and well refuted nonsense.

For example no one believes that "abiogenesis can happen by random forces of atomic particles.". This has to be one of the most ignorant expressions of what chemistry is, let alone abiogenesis, I have ever encountered. It's frankly embarrassing, something I'd expect a moderately scientifically literate high school student could understand is nonsense. Someone claiming to be an educated person, capable of intellectual effort should realise immediately the errors in that claim, yet you don't. How curious.

Also, yet again you evade SIMPLE questions designed to engender that which you claim (falsely now in my view) to desire: civil, intellectual discourse.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,11:05   

I would to address the issue of intelligence.

I believe that fundamental/elementary/intermediate technical understanding in a given field does not necessarily disqualify that person from giving their opinion in that field of study if/because:

1.  Part of that field can be explained philosophically, fundamentally, or in general illustration, which many fields of science can.  

For instance, I read a book on the theory of relativity.  It was not technical, but explained Einstein's philosophical thinking that led him to his famous theory, such as: if only two points are in the universe moving toward each other you can not tell which one is moving unless there is a third point and so on.  But I would never how to do his equations.

2. Part of that field i.e. hypotheses, implications or interpretations of that field crosses into the other person's field of study or expertise.  For example:  There may be a hypothesis that a chemist comes up with that has implications for an electrical engineer.  The engineer has 25 years experience, and is able to refute or add data to the hypothesis.

3. Because fundamental understanding in a field is not in itself always a bad thing.  Example: An architect and a carpenter.  The architect is going to understand the applied science of building.  His understanding of this will far exceed the carpenter's.  But the carpenter will usually be able to build the designs better because of his experience with tools, materials, and building techniques.  

Also because he is a businessman he will use his skills there also to build houses--which knowledge the the architect may not possess.  The architect has gone to college and makes $80k a year.  The carpenter is a high school drop out, after 15 years as a carpenter crew boss, becomes a general contractor and makes 120k a year.

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,11:11   

Well well well, how about those questions? Quit stalling.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,11:25   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,17:05)
I would to address the issue of intelligence.

I believe that fundamental/elementary/intermediate technical understanding in a given field does not necessarily disqualify that person from giving their opinion in that field of study if/because:

1.  Part of that field can be explained philosophically, fundamentally, or in general illustration, which many fields of science can.  

For instance, I read a book on the theory of relativity.  It was not technical, but explained Einstein's philosophical thinking that led him to his famous theory, such as: if only two points are in the universe moving toward each other you can not tell which one is moving unless there is a third point and so on.  But I would never how to do his equations.

2. Part of that field i.e. hypotheses, implications or interpretations of that field crosses into the other person's field of study or expertise.  For example:  There may be a hypothesis that a chemist comes up with that has implications for an electrical engineer.  The engineer has 25 years experience, and is able to refute or add data to the hypothesis.

3. Because fundamental understanding in a field is not in itself always a bad thing.  Example: An architect and a carpenter.  The architect is going to understand the applied science of building.  His understanding of this will far exceed the carpenter's.  But the carpenter will usually be able to build the designs better because of his experience with tools, materials, and building techniques.  

Also because he is a businessman he will use his skills there also to build houses--which knowledge the the architect may not possess.  The architect has gone to college and makes $80k a year.  The carpenter is a high school drop out, after 15 years as a carpenter crew boss, becomes a general contractor and makes 120k a year.

Someone call the WAAAAAHmbulance. We've got another whiner.

RFJE,

Your post is standard creationist anti-intellectual, irrelevant wank.

No one said that lack of technical expertise means that you have no right to have or voice your opinion.

All anyone has ever said is that lack of technical expertise means that you have no right for your opinion to automatically be correct (or worthy of serious consideration beyond a cursory examination and determination that it is nonsense).

See the difference? Why do I doubt it.

Your claims re: water and abiogenesis are incorrect. They are falsified by the simple fact that polypeptides can be, and are, made in water. This is not a matter of personal opinion, it is a matter of fact. You can go into a lab and actually DO this.

Louis

P.S. As Dnmlthr said, stop evading, answer the questions.

--------------
Bye.

  
Ideaforager



Posts: 16
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,11:28   

Quote
RFJE:I believe that fundamental/elementary/intermediate technical understanding in a given field does not necessarily disqualify that person from giving their opinion in that field of study ...
Does that persons opinion entitle him to present that opinion in a classroom setting?

 
Quote
RFJE: Part of that field can be explained philosophically, fundamentally, or in general illustration, which many fields of science can.

For instance, I read a book on the theory of relativity. It was not technical, but explained Einstein's philosophical thinking that led him to his famous theory, such as: if only two points are in the universe moving toward each other you can not tell which one is moving unless there is a third point and so on. But I would never how to do his equations.
If you didn't understand his simplified explanation would you than say that his equations are wrong?

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,11:34   

I was going to write a big long piece and refer to the growth of science in the previous centuries, and how honest men of faith approached the subject; as reading God's handiwork, in order to better understand the glory of God, but I won't.

I'll just add this to what Louis already said, RFJE: many American theists in particular  seem to view science as "the enemy" of their faith. This is a huge mistake.

God can't be taken out of the picture for those that have faith which can withstand scrutiny and questioning -- so there's no need to view "science" and the gathering of knowledge as something to be feared.

Knowledge is power and with it comes responsibility, yes, but there are good theistic and philosophical arguments all around you that God wants humans to find more and more knowledge, and responsibility -- to become better caretakers of themselves and the world in which we all have to live. If you personally believe in a God, then you should also believe that your brain is a product thereof. Whether I happen to agree with that or not is irrelevant. What counts is the logic of your faith, or the lack of faith found in your illogic.

From this perspective, your view is insulting to the very gifts of intellect and curiosity that you will say God instilled in mankind.

The actual evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The investigation of abiogenesis has only begun in the last few decades, really. Your claim that we *cannot* know is one that is solely based on ignorance and a misplaced sense of fear and a culturally-induced grasping for power.

Ask yourself what power really is, to humans on this planet, RFJE. Think really hard about what it means. Imagine yourself *alone* on Mars, say, with tons of gold and a thousand atomic bombs, but no way to affect any other humans directly. Do you have power? No. You couldn't do anything if you wanted, except to yourself. If you want to claim that as power, great, but it ends with you.

Power, on this planet, is the ability to get other living beings  to think and do what you want them to, to shape things to your will. Religions wield power, and they also teach children from a young age how to view the world,  what to fear and what to love.

Don't keep making the mistakes that other theists have already made...the Galileo and Giordano Bruno episodes didn't make the Catholic Church look good, you know.

If you want to talk about the actual science without having people mock your claims, then you should try not to preach and pose about things you clearly don't know about. Try it, and you'll find a much more receptive and kind-hearted audience. If not, well, then it's easy to just keep making fun of your claims and ideas.

Your choice.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
silverspoon



Posts: 123
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,11:53   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,11:05)
3. Because fundamental understanding in a field is not in itself always a bad thing.  Example: An architect and a carpenter.  The architect is going to understand the applied science of building.  His understanding of this will far exceed the carpenter's.  But the carpenter will usually be able to build the designs better because of his experience with tools, materials, and building techniques.

When the carpenter tells the architectural engineer no amount of trusses can carry the load of the roof, even after the architect shows the carpenter the calculations that prove it will, well, the carpenter is just being bull-headed and ignorant about the load carrying capabilities of those trusses.

Louis (the chemist from hell) just told you water does not keep polypeptides from forming. He’s the chemist who does this sort of thing every day. Just like the architect, Louis destroyed your argument from ignorance.

edited to replace an and with about.

--------------
Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,12:00   

He's saying being ignorant of a subject is an advantage that enables him to see the 'flaws' that are not seen by the people who have studied and practiced for years?

Is there a medical term for this particular delusion?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
silverspoon



Posts: 123
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,12:02   

Quote (khan @ Feb. 21 2009,12:00)
He's saying being ignorant of a subject is an advantage that enables him to see the 'flaws' that are not seen by the people who have studied and practiced for years?

Is there a medical term for this particular delusion?

Dip-wad comes to mind. That, and I wanted to reach 100 posts.

--------------
Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,12:06   

Quote (khan @ Feb. 21 2009,18:00)
He's saying being ignorant of a subject is an advantage that enables him to see the 'flaws' that are not seen by the people who have studied and practiced for years?

Is there a medical term for this particular delusion?

Abject fuckwittery.

It's in the DSM-IV, look it up.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,12:18   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,10:30)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,16:03)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 19 2009,02:31)
I have to concur with others in the absence of any confirmation from RFJE of a statement from Louis that's actually at issue -- "hydrolysis" and "water solubility" are two different things.

Mr. Wesley,

Just a side note of thanks for showing that two people can disagree agreeably.  If I were neutral on this issue, i would have my ears open to you more than to many on this site.  I sincerely wish we could put down our swords.

Please forgive me as I have limited time to read the entire thread.  I got the impression in this thread that many of you were closed to the idea that water would have hindered or stopped abiogenesis.  Part of of it is my fault as I gave wrong data from my source, which has been corrected.

That was part of the initial arguement--that water would have stopped spontaneous generation.  

I guess part of the problem is that hydrolysis and would be a chemical reaction on existing proteins, and the context of abiogenesis is formation in an uncontrolled setting, which has never been observed.  

However, on water solubilty--Mr. Wesley, couldn't that be a possibility, as far as hindering the chemical processes before they even get started.  Again, I realize that we're using a principle on formed proteins to argue against formation, but it seems that is all we have since we haven't observed it.

To really be a theory shouldn't abiogenesis be a testable hypothesis?  It has been tested and has not passed the test, or it has never found the right ingredients to make it happen. Isn't true science supposed to abandon or adjust the hypothesis if experimentation shows it to fail?  

Obviously life can not be produced through the context of Miller's experiment, even with intelligent interference.  I understand the thinking that you can not just give up  and say it couldn't happen, but then that forces you to BELIEVE  that abiogenesis can happen by random forces of atomic particles.  And that one day (as I have people say) you will find the secret.

FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

RFJE,

A) Wesley's statement does not mean what you think it means (AFAICT).

B) Water is NOT a problem for the formation of amide bonds (and hence polypeptides). I can take you into the lab, mix the chemicals together in front of your eyes IN WATER and make a new dipeptide. I can then take this dipeptide and do the same reaction and make a tetrapeptide. I can take the tetrapeptide and make an octopeptide, I can take the octapeptide......ALL IN WATER. In fact it's so simple I can get a machine to do it.

Aqueous peptide synthesis has been around for decades. People do this in the lab on a daily basis. The fact that you don't know this is NOT a point in favour of your ridiculous claims about abiogenesis.

You are confusing multiple issues because you know nothing about chemistry and cannot be bothered to alter that. Try to read something relevant for a modicum of understanding. You want people to put down their swords then stop being an intellectually dishonest, vacuous jackass. I supplied you with the basic means to minimally educate yourself about a topic. Do so. Your ignorance does not equal evidence. Returning like a dog to vomit to a nonsensical claim that is ONLY derived from your ignorance of a topic does not constitute "civil intellectual argument". It constitutes wilfully ignorant refusal to abandon a claim in the face of contrary evidence. It is annoying and certainly neither civil, nor intellectual, nor argument.

Abiogenesis is a hugely complex field of science, not "one theory". It is certainly not amenable to "one simple experiment". Of course you'd know this if you bothered to get off your arse and actually do the leg work in the library. Your whines about Miller-Urey type experiments/abiogenesis are nothing more than "Prove biology in one experiment" or "prove physics in one experiment" you are asking for one experiment to support an entire field of study which covers disparate phenomena. No one expects to make "life in a jar" (unless you're talking about synthetic viruses/bacteria, and even THAT is not a simple "one experiment" type scenario).

You are waving your hands about on a topic you are not sufficiently informed to discuss. Inform yourself. People here, myself included, are willing to help very nicely. What we, and I think I can speak for the majority on this one, are NOT willing to do is educate the utterly unwilling nutters who frequent this debate and repeatedly deal with their arcane and well refuted nonsense.

For example no one believes that "abiogenesis can happen by random forces of atomic particles.". This has to be one of the most ignorant expressions of what chemistry is, let alone abiogenesis, I have ever encountered. It's frankly embarrassing, something I'd expect a moderately scientifically literate high school student could understand is nonsense. Someone claiming to be an educated person, capable of intellectual effort should realise immediately the errors in that claim, yet you don't. How curious.

Also, yet again you evade SIMPLE questions designed to engender that which you claim (falsely now in my view) to desire: civil, intellectual discourse.

Louis

Dear Mr. Louis,

Thank you for verifying that your stand on "water hinders formations of proteins" is bunk.  That settles that. And I understand your evidence.

On your issue that I cannot be bothered to alter my ignorance in chemistry--that is incorrect.  I am currently studying chemistry.  

"Random forces" is actually ambiguous--you have a point. I should not say "random." I know that the laws of science in chemistry do not change.

Perhaps you could tell me what I should say in science to express the idea of no guiding force that derives from information or intelligence.  Obviously something has guided the physical universe into being, and in your book it is not outside intelligence. It must be within of the parameters of the physical universe.

I would like to very much read the materials from the evolutionary perspective on the origin of life, that's why I'm studying chemistry.

If you haven't lost complete patience with me could you answer a few questions:  

1. Can you tell me where and when hydrolysis takes place?  Are you saying it simply cannot happen in water? Is it only in digestion?  

2. I believe you said earlier that amino acids can be synthesized and put in aqueous solutions--why do they not bond and form proteins?   Are there other chemicals that must be added as catalysts?  

3.  If you do not expect to make life in a controlled environment with the most intelligent people in the world present, how can you expect life to form in a diluted pool of water or ocean when no intelligence at all is present?


I actually enjoy discoursing with "y'all" even though you think I'm a nut.  I'm learning from a few of you.  And no Louis, I do not expect to refute evolution--that would be nutty.  My understanding is more from a theological and philosophical standpoint.  Though I do wish though to say something to spark even one person's mind to at least consider the evidence from the scriptures.

I understand your frustration when I speak of an issue I have little understanding in.  It is the same frustration I and other studied Christians have when a book  that contains foreknowledge of already past AND current events is thrown out as a fable book.  When the compilation of many uni-themed writings over time contains promises that have, when true faith is applied, evidence of supernatural reality.  I feel it is worthy of at least consideration, but everyone has their choice.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,12:20   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,12:18)
Obviously something has guided the physical universe into being

How would you differentiate between a universe that had been guided into being and one that had not?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Ideaforager



Posts: 16
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,12:34   

Quote
I understand your frustration when I speak of an issue I have little understanding in. It is the same frustration I and other studied Christians have when a book that contains foreknowledge of already past AND current events is thrown out as a fable book.When the compilation of many uni-themed writings over time contains promises that have, when true faith is applied, evidence of supernatural reality.
Why do you think that there is so much disagreement among the many groups each consisting of many individuals that dedicate their lives to studying that same book?
Do you think that resolving all of their differences is a more worthy effort than taking on the scientific establishment first?

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,12:59   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 21 2009,11:34)
I was going to write a big long piece and refer to the growth of science in the previous centuries, and how honest men of faith approached the subject; as reading God's handiwork, in order to better understand the glory of God, but I won't.

I'll just add this to what Louis already said, RFJE: many American theists in particular  seem to view science as "the enemy" of their faith. This is a huge mistake.

God can't be taken out of the picture for those that have faith which can withstand scrutiny and questioning -- so there's no need to view "science" and the gathering of knowledge as something to be feared.

Knowledge is power and with it comes responsibility, yes, but there are good theistic and philosophical arguments all around you that God wants humans to find more and more knowledge, and responsibility -- to become better caretakers of themselves and the world in which we all have to live. If you personally believe in a God, then you should also believe that your brain is a product thereof. Whether I happen to agree with that or not is irrelevant. What counts is the logic of your faith, or the lack of faith found in your illogic.

From this perspective, your view is insulting to the very gifts of intellect and curiosity that you will say God instilled in mankind.

The actual evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The investigation of abiogenesis has only begun in the last few decades, really. Your claim that we *cannot* know is one that is solely based on ignorance and a misplaced sense of fear and a culturally-induced grasping for power.

Ask yourself what power really is, to humans on this planet, RFJE. Think really hard about what it means. Imagine yourself *alone* on Mars, say, with tons of gold and a thousand atomic bombs, but no way to affect any other humans directly. Do you have power? No. You couldn't do anything if you wanted, except to yourself. If you want to claim that as power, great, but it ends with you.

Power, on this planet, is the ability to get other living beings  to think and do what you want them to, to shape things to your will. Religions wield power, and they also teach children from a young age how to view the world,  what to fear and what to love.

Don't keep making the mistakes that other theists have already made...the Galileo and Giordano Bruno episodes didn't make the Catholic Church look good, you know.

If you want to talk about the actual science without having people mock your claims, then you should try not to preach and pose about things you clearly don't know about. Try it, and you'll find a much more receptive and kind-hearted audience. If not, well, then it's easy to just keep making fun of your claims and ideas.

Your choice.

Hi deadman,

I don't believe that science is a thing to be feared.  Science puts me in awe.  I like to go to the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago almost as much as an NFL Bears football game in Chicago, and I'm a huge football fan! But that hasn't been my line of work--no.  

You said, "God can't be taken out of the picture for those that have faith which can withstand scrutiny and questioning -- so there's no need to view "science" and the gathering of knowledge as something to be feared."

No  He can not for and INDIVIDUAL--you are correct. But evolutionary thought has taken God out of the picture politically and socially, and most important educationally.

Science is not my enemy--evolution is, because it denies intelligent design.  

I mean, to be intentionally sarcastic here, why would I view evolutionists as my enemies (and I really don't, you just don't believe in anything that implies intelligent design)?  I mean just because you guys have said everything in the book to malign, label, and judge me, and cuss me because I misstated a source or disagree with you based on evidence that is not "science" but has EVERYTHING to do with ORIGINS?  Have you ever heard of the concept of the punishment exceeds the crime?

You said, "If you want to talk about the actual science without having people mock your claims, then you should try not to preach and pose about things you clearly don't know about. Try it, and you'll find a much more receptive and kind-hearted audience. If not, well, then it's easy to just keep making fun of your claims and ideas."

How much science education do I need when I study the hypothesis of the oxygen catastrophe, and ask the question-- why would the O atoms go predominately underground into the the ground to form CO2 and H2O vapor and then be spewed out by volconoes to form the atmosphere?  If there was enough O atoms to form enough water vapor to condense and form oceans, then it would seem to my simple little mind there was quite a bit of O atoms present--what would hinder the atoms from bonding into O2 in the atmosphere?

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:05   

Alright, hold on, let me get this straight. You willingly state that you don't know much about science, yet you are still convinced that an important part of mainstream science has to be wrong.

Don't you see the disconnect here? A yes or no answer will suffice.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:09   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 21 2009,12:20)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,12:18)
Obviously something has guided the physical universe into being

How would you differentiate between a universe that had been guided into being and one that had not?

IMHO, in the one that had not, there would be no desire or need to pursue the question.  Chance never asks questions nor does it have direction, purpose or meaning.

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:14   

I'm not saying that CO2 and water vapor would have a chemical reaction and form O2.  I asking what prevented all those O atoms from bonding with each other in the atmosphere, IF there was enough (as inferred in the hypothesis) O atoms to form enough water for the oceans?  

Doesn't the hypothesis itself guide the O atoms underneath the earth?  This was not observed, but it's based upon assumed evidence such as red beds, oxidation of iron of a certain age, and metal oxides in fossilized soils.

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:14   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 21 2009,19:09)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 21 2009,12:20)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,12:18)
Obviously something has guided the physical universe into being

How would you differentiate between a universe that had been guided into being and one that had not?

IMHO, in the one that had not, there would be no desire or need to pursue the question.  Chance never asks questions nor does it have direction, purpose or meaning.

Zero

Your willingness to pursue a hypothesis is not evidence for that hypothesis.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:19   

Quote (dnmlthr @ Feb. 21 2009,13:05)
Alright, hold on, let me get this straight. You willingly state that you don't know much about science, yet you are still convinced that an important part of mainstream science has to be wrong.

Don't you see the disconnect here? A yes or no answer will suffice.

Excuse me, I never said that--you say that.  If I have taken science in high school, lived 47 years and watched many science programs, read science mags and books, read ICR materials, then I do know "something" about science.

Don't stall off questions that I ask about the O2 catastrophe by attacking my knowledge of science.  Obviously I have a fundamental knowledge or I would not be able to even ask the question!

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:22   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,13:06)
Quote (khan @ Feb. 21 2009,18:00)
He's saying being ignorant of a subject is an advantage that enables him to see the 'flaws' that are not seen by the people who have studied and practiced for years?

Is there a medical term for this particular delusion?

Abject fuckwittery.

It's in the DSM-IV, look it up.

Louis

Technically, Abject Fuckwittery, Recurrent, Severe, with Psychotic Features.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:27   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,18:18)
Dear Mr. Louis,

Thank you for verifying that your stand on "water hinders formations of proteins" is bunk.  That settles that. And I understand your evidence.

On your issue that I cannot be bothered to alter my ignorance in chemistry--that is incorrect.  I am currently studying chemistry.  

"Random forces" is actually ambiguous--you have a point. I should not say "random." I know that the laws of science in chemistry do not change.

Perhaps you could tell me what I should say in science to express the idea of no guiding force that derives from information or intelligence.  Obviously something has guided the physical universe into being, and in your book it is not outside intelligence. It must be within of the parameters of the physical universe.

I would like to very much read the materials from the evolutionary perspective on the origin of life, that's why I'm studying chemistry.

If you haven't lost complete patience with me could you answer a few questions:  

1. Can you tell me where and when hydrolysis takes place?  Are you saying it simply cannot happen in water? Is it only in digestion?  

2. I believe you said earlier that amino acids can be synthesized and put in aqueous solutions--why do they not bond and form proteins?   Are there other chemicals that must be added as catalysts?  

3.  If you do not expect to make life in a controlled environment with the most intelligent people in the world present, how can you expect life to form in a diluted pool of water or ocean when no intelligence at all is present?


I actually enjoy discoursing with "y'all" even though you think I'm a nut.  I'm learning from a few of you.  And no Louis, I do not expect to refute evolution--that would be nutty.  My understanding is more from a theological and philosophical standpoint.  Though I do wish though to say something to spark even one person's mind to at least consider the evidence from the scriptures.

I understand your frustration when I speak of an issue I have little understanding in.  It is the same frustration I and other studied Christians have when a book  that contains foreknowledge of already past AND current events is thrown out as a fable book.  When the compilation of many uni-themed writings over time contains promises that have, when true faith is applied, evidence of supernatural reality.  I feel it is worthy of at least consideration, but everyone has their choice.

1) It's not Mr Louis.

2) I'll answer your questions when you answer mine.

3) You're currently studying chemistry? And STILL asking the sorts of questions you are? Get a better teacher.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:31   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,19:19)
Quote (dnmlthr @ Feb. 21 2009,13:05)
Alright, hold on, let me get this straight. You willingly state that you don't know much about science, yet you are still convinced that an important part of mainstream science has to be wrong.

Don't you see the disconnect here? A yes or no answer will suffice.

Excuse me, I never said that--you say that.  If I have taken science in high school, lived 47 years and watched many science programs, read science mags and books, read ICR materials, then I do know "something" about science.

Don't stall off questions that I ask about the O2 catastrophe by attacking my knowledge of science.  Obviously I have a fundamental knowledge or I would not be able to even ask the question!

Since the ICR is positively anti-science (they do what Feynman would call "cargo cult science", i.e. they make the appearance of doing science without actually doing any) then I'd strongly argue that you not only know nothing about science, but that you actually know less than nothing due to the fact that what you "know" is inimical to actual science.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:36   

Quote (dnmlthr @ Feb. 21 2009,13:14)
Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 21 2009,19:09)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 21 2009,12:20)
 
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,12:18)
Obviously something has guided the physical universe into being

How would you differentiate between a universe that had been guided into being and one that had not?

IMHO, in the one that had not, there would be no desire or need to pursue the question.  Chance never asks questions nor does it have direction, purpose or meaning.

Zero

Your willingness to pursue a hypothesis is not evidence for that hypothesis.

And why would some one want to ‘differentiate’ when there are not two?

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:36   

Louis, you beat me to the punch. On the topic of relying on denialist sources, I only have this to add.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:47   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,13:27)
1) It's not Mr Louis.

2) I'll answer your questions when you answer mine.

3) You're currently studying chemistry? And STILL asking the sorts of questions you are? Get a better teacher.

Louis

I am told to not come on here preaching about things I "nothing" about.  Preaching would imply--you think you are an authority on this issue.

So I question things--not science--but hypotheses that have a purpose of explaining our origin without a designer.

I am then told my questions are stupid.  So your saying just shut up and join us.  Is that the way the entire scientific establishment does to those who deviate from THE THEORY?

Even if I become an MD or a PhD, you'll never acknowledge me as a scientist because I believe in God.  You probably would have mocked Issac Newton (who believed in God), though he co-discovered calculus.  You would probably mock my doctor who has Bible verses on his office wall.  Maybe they should take away his credentials.  That's the same reasoning you're using.  A Phd, or a MS, or a BS who works or writes articles in defense of intelligent design, and hence has an affiliation with ICR is not a scientist.  LUDICROUS!

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:47   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,13:14)
I'm not saying that CO2 and water vapor would have a chemical reaction and form O2.  I asking what prevented all those O atoms from bonding with each other in the atmosphere, IF there was enough (as inferred in the hypothesis) O atoms to form enough water for the oceans?  

Doesn't the hypothesis itself guide the O atoms underneath the earth?  This was not observed, but it's based upon assumed evidence such as red beds, oxidation of iron of a certain age, and metal oxides in fossilized soils.

What O2 in the atmosphere?  The ancient atmosphere of the Earth was a reducing one, not like today's oxidizing type.

Likewise, the early oceans were bereft of free O2 and it wasn't even blue.  No, the dissolved Iron in the ocean gave it a distinctively green color.

So why do you think the early atmosphere was oxidizing?  As for why was there H2O and therefore the O2, there is plenty of H2O in space but no free O2.

As to the BIF, below such formations you do not see FeO.  This is not "assumed".  How does your science explain the BIF?  The one where the Earth went from a Reducing to an Oxidizing atmosphere explains a lot with no hand waving.

Again, how does creation science explain the BIF?

I'll also ask you this, why is your god the correct version?  You do know that even if Evolution is 100% wrong and there was some divine agency, your god is one of thousands of options.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:55   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,19:47)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,13:27)
1) It's not Mr Louis.

2) I'll answer your questions when you answer mine.

3) You're currently studying chemistry? And STILL asking the sorts of questions you are? Get a better teacher.

Louis

I am told to not come on here preaching about things I "nothing" about.  Preaching would imply--you think you are an authority on this issue.

So I question things--not science--but hypotheses that have a purpose of explaining our origin without a designer.

I am then told my questions are stupid.  So your saying just shut up and join us.  Is that the way the entire scientific establishment does to those who deviate from THE THEORY?

Even if I become an MD or a PhD, you'll never acknowledge me as a scientist because I believe in God.  You probably would have mocked Issac Newton (who believed in God), though he co-discovered calculus.  You would probably mock my doctor who has Bible verses on his office wall.  Maybe they should take away his credentials.  That's the same reasoning you're using.  A Phd, or a MS, or a BS who works or writes articles in defense of intelligent design, and hence has an affiliation with ICR is not a scientist.  LUDICROUS!

That's quite an accusation. Back it up.

ETA: Because you would never throw accusations around without being able to back them up sufficiently, would you?

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:56   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,12:59)
evolutionary thought has taken God out of the picture politically and socially, and most important educationally. Science is not my enemy--evolution is, because it denies intelligent design.  

Nonsense. You don't know what you are talking about in the least. Evolution IS "intelligent design" to most Christians on this planet, RFJE. What you object to is that God is simply left out of the equation, being an untestable, undemonstrable and unfalsifiable quantity.

Theoretically, your faith should be enough to say "Okay, well, God put all things in motion, but this can't be demonstrated, tested or falsified, but I believe" and yet your faith isn't that strong, so you have to latch on to modern-day snake-oil salesmen like ICR who are pushing creationism/"intelligent design" in a package that is a mockery of science.

Then you try to pawn it off here as though people should simply fall down when you make pronouncements, as if YOU have actual knowledge on the subjects you're blathering about.

Take this hypothetical "oxygen crisis" you keep yapping about. Does O bind preferentially and if so, go through possibles all on your own. Then, given that you have SEEN that water doesn't prevent abiogenetic structures, ask yourself why your question is even meaningful.

You were given citations on deep-sea vent abiogenetic studies. Have you bothered to read them? NO. Did you bother to read them prior to proclaiming abiogensis theories "imposible?" NO. Does this strike you as fallacious reasoning on your part? NO. Why not? because you're apparently simply not interested in reasoning and logic.

You buy fallacies like "science is pro-evolution and it's against God" when that's not demonstrated by you in the least.

You buy fallacies like believing that ID is even a viable means of knowing ANYTHING at all -- because it's not.

This can be demonstrated by the inability of ANY "intelligent design" creationist to come up with any means of showing the validity of, falsifying, testing and replicating their claims.

At the very LEAST, abiogenesis studies in mainstream science are based on valid science...what we DO know. Contrast that to the bullshit blatherings of Behe and Dembski and every single creationist at ICR that I've ever read --- and I've read most of them.

Tell you what, find me ONE article at ICR supporting creationist/ID that *isn't* based on pseudoscience that can easily be exposed as fraudulent. Just ONE.

Next, I'd like you to read through the various citations from accepted, peer-reviewed journals that you've been given and I'd like you to show similar flaws. Do it. Show that you have credibility, honesty and an actual willingness to do the groundwork BEFORE you start making ideologically-based charges that you can't support.          

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:56   

This is my last post.  I am going to study.  This has been a good experience for me.  The next time I will be much more informed from both sides--don't worry.  

As you have charged me with stupidity, hypocrisy, pride,  perversity, and ignorance, I will charge you with spiritual blindness, and people who are making their contribution for the spiritual ignorance and moral decay of our society.  

You can't even see the signs of the times.  Spiritually speaking, elementary.  You need to wake up.

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,13:58   

As I can't edit, I'll add more here.

What "hypothesis" has the O2 "moving underground".

O2 was produced by photosynthesis from organisms that "poisoned" their own world by dumping a toxic gas, O2, into their environment.

It was this free O2 that started to combine with the dissolved Fe in the oceans and other locals that gave us the BIF.

That leads me to ask these questions, in science usage what are the differences between:

1:  Postulate

2:  Hypothesis

3:  Theory

4:  Proof

This will speak volumes about your true science literacy.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2324
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,14:02   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,11:14)
I'm not saying that CO2 and water vapor would have a chemical reaction and form O2.  I asking what prevented all those O atoms from bonding with each other in the atmosphere, IF there was enough (as inferred in the hypothesis) O atoms to form enough water for the oceans?  

Doesn't the hypothesis itself guide the O atoms underneath the earth?  This was not observed, but it's based upon assumed evidence such as red beds, oxidation of iron of a certain age, and metal oxides in fossilized soils.

You are truly a "willfully ignorant" person.

Have you ever lit a fire? Did you ever learn that combustion is merely the combining of molecular oxygen, O2, and whatever you are combusting? This reaction releases energy. The easiest possible chemical reaction in the universe is to combine hydrogen with oxygen to make water.

The water was water before it ever came to the Earth. The early Earth had no oxygen gas "underneath the earth." There was very little iron oxide even in the oceans. There was lots of iron sulfide, which formed pyrite which cannot form under an oxygenated atmosphere. And there was uraninite which cannot form under an oxygenated atmosphere. There was in fact ditral pyrite, and uraninite which cannot survive in oxygenated water.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,14:04   

Quote
Even if I become an MD or a PhD, you'll never acknowledge me as a scientist because I believe in God.


I'll repeat this again, ASS -- there are people HERE that you have posted to and who have responded TO you that are "believers," you hubris-filled, ready-for-martyrdom, ignorant twit.

Your willingness to sink so low as to make the fucking DUMB claims you have so far is testament to the purely shallow culturally-determined and ego-based "faith" that you have.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,14:06   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,19:47)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,13:27)
1) It's not Mr Louis.

2) I'll answer your questions when you answer mine.

3) You're currently studying chemistry? And STILL asking the sorts of questions you are? Get a better teacher.

Louis

I am told to not come on here preaching about things I "nothing" about.  Preaching would imply--you think you are an authority on this issue.

So I question things--not science--but hypotheses that have a purpose of explaining our origin without a designer.

I am then told my questions are stupid.  So your saying just shut up and join us.  Is that the way the entire scientific establishment does to those who deviate from THE THEORY?

Even if I become an MD or a PhD, you'll never acknowledge me as a scientist because I believe in God.  You probably would have mocked Issac Newton (who believed in God), though he co-discovered calculus.  You would probably mock my doctor who has Bible verses on his office wall.  Maybe they should take away his credentials.  That's the same reasoning you're using.  A Phd, or a MS, or a BS who works or writes articles in defense of intelligent design, and hence has an affiliation with ICR is not a scientist.  LUDICROUS!

No.

None of the above is true. Believing in god really isn't an issue. Newton's a terrible example by the way, the vast majority of his life's work was theological, spiritualist and alchemical. Try someone modern like Francis Collins. He believes in god, and whilst I would disagree with him about that (and why he believes as he believes) I'll cheerfully acknowledge he's not only a scientist but a vastly more successful scientist than I am.

Also, no one said "shut up and join us". No one said that you're not entitled to hold and express your opinion. That's your persecution complex, not a reflection of reality.

What people HAVE said is that you need to be MINIMALLY INFORMED about a topic before bloviating about it. The questions you ask, the way you ask them and the way you respond to the answers demonstrate your ignorance of the topics about which you bloviate.

You don't even understand what abiogenesis IS, let alone understand the relevant science well enough to question it meaningfully. You have demonstrated this, no one's done it for you.

As for the ICR and other creationist chop shops, I'll give you a hint: if you start with your conclusions, you ain't doing science. They might have degrees but ultimately degrees mean nothing, the evidence is everything. And boy, they've got no evidence. None. Get over it.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,14:06   

Quote (RFJE @ )
If I were neutral on this issue, i would have my ears open...

and
Quote
To really be a theory shouldn't abiogenesis be a testable hypothesis?

and
Quote
My understanding is more from a theological and philosophical standpoint.

and
Quote
it would seem to my simple little mind there was quite a bit of O atoms present--what would hinder the atoms from bonding into O2 in the atmosphere?

followed by
Quote
If I have taken science in high school, lived 47 years and watched many science programs, read science mags and books, read ICR materials, then I do know "something" about science.

tells us pretty much all we need to know here, doesn't it?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,14:08   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,13:56)
This is my last post.  I am going to study.  This has been a good experience for me.  The next time I will be much more informed from both sides--don't worry.  

As you have charged me with stupidity, hypocrisy, pride,  perversity, and ignorance, I will charge you with spiritual blindness, and people who are making their contribution for the spiritual ignorance and moral decay of our society.  

You can't even see the signs of the times.  Spiritually speaking, elementary.  You need to wake up.

Studying is good.  Too bad I fear you're going off to stick you head in the sand and re-read Gish and Johnson.

The only way you can be "more informed" is to drop your dogmatic approach.  I don't think anyone has calle dyou stupid.  Your ideas are the always refuted ones, the ones that a new generation of buy-bull thumpers get told as "fact" only to have their asses handed to them again and again.

Pride, hypocrisy and ignorance you have.  You have the pride that your "god" did it and that you know what your "god" is all about.  The hypocrisy comes from the dogma of your own Xian religion that your god is infinite and all knowledgeable and you as a limited and finite human being are no where close.  How do you reconcile you thinking you know what an infinite and timeless being is and you neither of the two?  Ignorance is clearly viewable in that you really have no idea what you are talking about.

I have no problem with ignorance.  I am ignorant of who lives in downtown Hamburg.  Willful ignorance is what I fine so appalling.  See, I can find out who lives in downtown Hamburg if I needed to do so.  You have been pointed to sources that can assist you in learning and yet you close your eyes and ears.  That is much like claiming that there is nobody living in downtown Hamburg because you've never seen them.

As to your last sentence, that is prideful, ignorant, hypocritical and stupid as we can read the intent in your "fuck you" tirade as you stamp your feet and perpare to leave in a sulk.

Here's something to take

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,14:08   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,19:56)
This is my last post.  I am going to study.  This has been a good experience for me.  The next time I will be much more informed from both sides--don't worry.  

As you have charged me with stupidity, hypocrisy, pride,  perversity, and ignorance, I will charge you with spiritual blindness, and people who are making their contribution for the spiritual ignorance and moral decay of our society.  

You can't even see the signs of the times.  Spiritually speaking, elementary.  You need to wake up.

Spiritually blind? Fuck off you patronising twat.

There are no "sides" in this. It's about the evidence. Scientists follow the evidence, creationists and other clowns try to shoe horn it into their preconceived notions of what they want to be the case. It ain't science no matter how pretty their degree certificates look.

Good riddance.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,14:11   

I forgot to finish:

RFJE, here's something for you to take:

Only a friend will tell you that you have food in your teeth or a rip in your pants.  Your enemy will let you make a fool of yourself for as long as you want.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2324
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,14:22   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,11:47)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,13:27)
1) It's not Mr Louis.

2) I'll answer your questions when you answer mine.

3) You're currently studying chemistry? And STILL asking the sorts of questions you are? Get a better teacher.

Louis

I am told to not come on here preaching about things I "nothing" about.  Preaching would imply--you think you are an authority on this issue.

So I question things--not science--but hypotheses that have a purpose of explaining our origin without a designer.

I am then told my questions are stupid.  So your saying just shut up and join us.  Is that the way the entire scientific establishment does to those who deviate from THE THEORY?

Even if I become an MD or a PhD, you'll never acknowledge me as a scientist because I believe in God.  You probably would have mocked Issac Newton (who believed in God), though he co-discovered calculus.  You would probably mock my doctor who has Bible verses on his office wall.  Maybe they should take away his credentials.  That's the same reasoning you're using.  A Phd, or a MS, or a BS who works or writes articles in defense of intelligent design, and hence has an affiliation with ICR is not a scientist.  LUDICROUS!

Here is a list of books about evolution and religion. All the authors are Christian, some are ordained, nearly all are scientists. These books all make the point that evolution is real, and that the theory of evolution is the best explanation for how life is the way it is.

Ayala, Francisco
2006 Darwin and Intelligent Design Minneapolis: Fortress Press

Ayala, Francisco
2007 Darwin’s Gift: To Science and Religion (Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press- National Academies Press)

Collins, Francis S.
2006 The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief New York Free Press- Simon and Schuster

Frye, Roland Mushat (editor)
1983 "Is God a Creationist?: The Religious Case Against Creation-Science" New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, Inc.

Giberson, Karl W.
2008 “Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and believe in evolution” New York: HarperCollins (Giberson is a physicist and it shows. He makes many errors of fact, scientific and historical).

Godfry, Stephen J. and Christopher R. Smith
2005 "Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleontology, and Biblical Interpretation." Toronto: Clements Publishing.

Haught, John F.
2001 “Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution” New York: Paulist Press (Haught is a Catholic theologian who testified as a plaintiff expert in the Dover, Pa “Intelligent Design” trial).

Hyers, Conrad
1984 “The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science” Atlanta: John Knox Press (Conrad Hyers has served as Professor of the History of Religion and Chair of the Department of Religion at both Beloit College and at Gustavus Adolphus College. He is also an ordained Presbyterian minister)

Miller, Keith B. (editor)
2003 “Perspectives on an Evolving Creation” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing

Ken Miller
1999 "Finding Darwin's God" New York: HarperCollins
____
2008 “Only a Theory” New York: Viking Press

Towne, Margaret Gray
2003 "Honest to Genesis: A Biblical & Scientific Challenge to Creationism"  Baltimore: PublishAmerica"

Young, Davis A.
1995 “The Biblical Flood: A case study of the Church’s Response to extrabiblical evidence” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Paternoster Press

Young, Davis A.
2008 "The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth" Downers Grave: InterVarsity Press

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,14:31   

Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 21 2009,13:58)
As I can't edit, I'll add more here.

What "hypothesis" has the O2 "moving underground".

O2 was produced by photosynthesis from organisms that "poisoned" their own world by dumping a toxic gas, O2, into their environment.

It was this free O2 that started to combine with the dissolved Fe in the oceans and other locals that gave us the BIF.

That leads me to ask these questions, in science usage what are the differences between:

1:  Postulate

2:  Hypothesis

3:  Theory

4:  Proof

This will speak volumes about your true science literacy.

OK, i am already stereotyped so that's why its no use to fight this battle.

I am completely acquainted with the reason evolutionists give for O2 in the atmosphere.  Did you think I didn't know that?  

I KNOW that the hypothesis says that microorganisms are responsible for O2.

The popular hypothesis about the atmosphere is that it was formed by volcanoes spewing out CO2, water vapor, methane, nitrogen among other things ---no O2.  

Therefore the IMPLICATION is that were alot of O atoms and they were underground, as in UNDER volcanoes.  The O atoms were in such quantity that they bonded with H, were spewed out by volcanoes as water vapor, eventually condensed, and formed OCEANS, not ponds.  That's alot of O atoms.  (i did not have to have a degree in chemistry to figure this out).

Are you telling me that O does not bond with O except by
metabolic means?   O has 8 electrons and can attract 8 electrons.  Therefore it will be able to bind with another O atom if they come into to contact.  

This oxygen crisis that I keep "yapping about" is in YOUR theory's geologic timescale.  God forbid that I should say ANYTHING that is associated with creationism, so I use mainstream sources.   The O2 catastrophe is there for all to read.

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,14:38   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 21 2009,14:02)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,11:14)
I'm not saying that CO2 and water vapor would have a chemical reaction and form O2.  I asking what prevented all those O atoms from bonding with each other in the atmosphere, IF there was enough (as inferred in the hypothesis) O atoms to form enough water for the oceans?  

Doesn't the hypothesis itself guide the O atoms underneath the earth?  This was not observed, but it's based upon assumed evidence such as red beds, oxidation of iron of a certain age, and metal oxides in fossilized soils.

You are truly a "willfully ignorant" person.

Have you ever lit a fire? Did you ever learn that combustion is merely the combining of molecular oxygen, O2, and whatever you are combusting? This reaction releases energy. The easiest possible chemical reaction in the universe is to combine hydrogen with oxygen to make water.

The water was water before it ever came to the Earth. The early Earth had no oxygen gas "underneath the earth." There was very little iron oxide even in the oceans. There was lots of iron sulfide, which formed pyrite which cannot form under an oxygenated atmosphere. And there was uraninite which cannot form under an oxygenated atmosphere. There was in fact ditral pyrite, and uraninite which cannot survive in oxygenated water.

Dr. G.H.

With all due respect sir--that's what I said before and in the post I just posted before this.  There was no 02 spewed out by the volcanoes which formed the atmosphere---I am just stating what I read from mainstream science.

Yes, I do understand that O2 is highly reactive and "burns" elements.

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,14:44   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,14:31)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 21 2009,13:58)
As I can't edit, I'll add more here.

What "hypothesis" has the O2 "moving underground".

O2 was produced by photosynthesis from organisms that "poisoned" their own world by dumping a toxic gas, O2, into their environment.

It was this free O2 that started to combine with the dissolved Fe in the oceans and other locals that gave us the BIF.

That leads me to ask these questions, in science usage what are the differences between:

1:  Postulate

2:  Hypothesis

3:  Theory

4:  Proof

This will speak volumes about your true science literacy.

OK, i am already stereotyped so that's why its no use to fight this battle.

I am completely acquainted with the reason evolutionists give for O2 in the atmosphere.  Did you think I didn't know that?  

I KNOW that the hypothesis says that microorganisms are responsible for O2.

The popular hypothesis about the atmosphere is that it was formed by volcanoes spewing out CO2, water vapor, methane, nitrogen among other things ---no O2.  

Therefore the IMPLICATION is that were alot of O atoms and they were underground, as in UNDER volcanoes.  The O atoms were in such quantity that they bonded with H, were spewed out by volcanoes as water vapor, eventually condensed, and formed OCEANS, not ponds.  That's alot of O atoms.  (i did not have to have a degree in chemistry to figure this out).

Are you telling me that O does not bond with O except by
metabolic means?   O has 8 electrons and can attract 8 electrons.  Therefore it will be able to bind with another O atom if they come into to contact.  

This oxygen crisis that I keep "yapping about" is in YOUR theory's geologic timescale.  God forbid that I should say ANYTHING that is associated with creationism, so I use mainstream sources.   The O2 catastrophe is there for all to read.

"Stereotyped"?  As you didn't stereotype that those on this board would be "ignorant" of what you had?  You telling us that you know that it was biological action that produced O2 yet you say Volcanoes produced O2 is part of the problem you have.

Your idea that there was a lot of free O2 under the Earth in Volcanoes, where'd you get that?  You do know modern day volcanoes are tremendous sources of CO2 don't you?  So why would you think that they changed significantly over the years?

Also, and I'm sure Louis can tell you more, but O2 is a very volitale gas.  It likes mixing as was your problem with "peptides being destroyed by O2".  Any free oxygen down in the earth would mix with other chemicals to form NO2, CO2 and such.  Why do you think that O2 heated to a red hot state would maintain being just O2 when at those temperatures, it will react with many different substances?

Here's more, why are the atmosphere of Venus and Mars CO2?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,14:45   

Quick question RFJE, what are the gases spewed out in a volcanic eruption?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,14:56   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 21 2009,14:22)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,11:47)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,13:27)
1) It's not Mr Louis.

2) I'll answer your questions when you answer mine.

3) You're currently studying chemistry? And STILL asking the sorts of questions you are? Get a better teacher.

Louis

I am told to not come on here preaching about things I "nothing" about.  Preaching would imply--you think you are an authority on this issue.

So I question things--not science--but hypotheses that have a purpose of explaining our origin without a designer.

I am then told my questions are stupid.  So your saying just shut up and join us.  Is that the way the entire scientific establishment does to those who deviate from THE THEORY?

Even if I become an MD or a PhD, you'll never acknowledge me as a scientist because I believe in God.  You probably would have mocked Issac Newton (who believed in God), though he co-discovered calculus.  You would probably mock my doctor who has Bible verses on his office wall.  Maybe they should take away his credentials.  That's the same reasoning you're using.  A Phd, or a MS, or a BS who works or writes articles in defense of intelligent design, and hence has an affiliation with ICR is not a scientist.  LUDICROUS!

Here is a list of books about evolution and religion. All the authors are Christian, some are ordained, nearly all are scientists. These books all make the point that evolution is real, and that the theory of evolution is the best explanation for how life is the way it is.

Ayala, Francisco
2006 Darwin and Intelligent Design Minneapolis: Fortress Press

Ayala, Francisco
2007 Darwin’s Gift: To Science and Religion (Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press- National Academies Press)

Collins, Francis S.
2006 The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief New York Free Press- Simon and Schuster

Frye, Roland Mushat (editor)
1983 "Is God a Creationist?: The Religious Case Against Creation-Science" New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, Inc.

Giberson, Karl W.
2008 “Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and believe in evolution” New York: HarperCollins (Giberson is a physicist and it shows. He makes many errors of fact, scientific and historical).

Godfry, Stephen J. and Christopher R. Smith
2005 "Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleontology, and Biblical Interpretation." Toronto: Clements Publishing.

Haught, John F.
2001 “Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution” New York: Paulist Press (Haught is a Catholic theologian who testified as a plaintiff expert in the Dover, Pa “Intelligent Design” trial).

Hyers, Conrad
1984 “The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science” Atlanta: John Knox Press (Conrad Hyers has served as Professor of the History of Religion and Chair of the Department of Religion at both Beloit College and at Gustavus Adolphus College. He is also an ordained Presbyterian minister)

Miller, Keith B. (editor)
2003 “Perspectives on an Evolving Creation” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing

Ken Miller
1999 "Finding Darwin's God" New York: HarperCollins
____
2008 “Only a Theory” New York: Viking Press

Towne, Margaret Gray
2003 "Honest to Genesis: A Biblical & Scientific Challenge to Creationism"  Baltimore: PublishAmerica"

Young, Davis A.
1995 “The Biblical Flood: A case study of the Church’s Response to extrabiblical evidence” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Paternoster Press

Young, Davis A.
2008 "The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth" Downers Grave: InterVarsity Press

Dr. G.H.

If these well-meaning folks want to combine evolution with the Bible, they would have to construct a model that does not "destroy" Adam.  Let me explain.

Please indulge me even hypothetically for a moment, as if I'm reporting my findings of mythology.

According to the Bible, Adam started a chain reaction.  He brought sin, and because of sin he brought death.  The law was added later to define sin and show man what sin was.  But it had no power to help man to do right or forgive sin.  A complex sacrificial worship system was set up to "push back" sin, until the redeemer came.  Christ came and was seen by God as the perfect eternal sacrifice, and He is declared to be the way to God, through faith in his sacrifice.

If death came in the world because it just the ending of biological processes--starting at microorganisms--then the story of Adam is a myth or some kind of symbolic story--then there is no such thing as the original sin, nor the sin nature of man which we inherited from Adam, and therefore the death of Christ is meaningless.  Then Christ and the apostles are either crazy, or liars.

Then there is no basis for the church or Christians, because there is no need for Christ, and Christ is the only person who authorizes the church--the Bible is the only source where the church finds its foundation.

SO to mesh the two is to say the church is just a social club of do-gooders, hypocrites, sexual deviates, and simpletons who need "the opiate for the masses."

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,15:04   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,14:56)
[quote=Dr.GH,Feb. 21 2009,14:22]
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,11:47)
 [quote=Louis,Feb. 21 2009,13:27]

Dr. G.H.

If these well-meaning folks want to combine evolution with the Bible, they would have to construct a model that does not "destroy" Adam.  Let me explain.

Please indulge me even hypothetically for a moment, as if I'm reporting my findings of mythology.

According to the Bible, Adam started a chain reaction.  He brought sin, and because of sin he brought death.  The law was added later to define sin and show man what sin was.  But it had no power to help man to do right or forgive sin.  A complex sacrificial worship system was set up to "push back" sin, until the redeemer came.  Christ came and was seen by God as the perfect eternal sacrifice, and He is declared to be the way to God, through faith in his sacrifice.

If death came in the world because it just the ending of biological processes--starting at microorganisms--then the story of Adam is a myth or some kind of symbolic story--then there is no such thing as the original sin, nor the sin nature of man which we inherited from Adam, and therefore the death of Christ is meaningless.  Then Christ and the apostles are either crazy, or liars.

Then there is no basis for the church or Christians, because there is no need for Christ, and Christ is the only person who authorizes the church--the Bible is the only source where the church finds its foundation.

SO to mesh the two is to say the church is just a social club of do-gooders, hypocrites, sexual deviates, and simpletons who need "the opiate for the masses."

Science doesn't destroy religion.  It shows where dogma doesn't make sense or a "literal reading" is a waste of time.

What you've also shown is that you have no interest in anything that doesn't fit your preconceived world view.  It is you world view that this benevolent god told two people who had no idea of right and wrong (how could they as they had not eaten from the tree of knowledge?) and left them with a loaded weapon.  Of course, this omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent god "went away" allowing a liar to come in and tempt them.

If a parent were to leave two toddlers alone with a loaded gun on a chair and say, "Don't touch that", they'd be a terrible parent, correct?  So why isn't your god the poster child for terrible parenting?

But if you really want to learn, you are going to have to let go of what you think is a fact.  If you go around looking for things that only agree with you, I know a place where that works.

Try the Taliban.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,15:08   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,14:56)
According to the Bible, Adam started a chain reaction.  He brought sin, and because of sin he brought death.  The law was added later to define sin and show man what sin was.  But it had no power to help man to do right or forgive sin.  A complex sacrificial worship system was set up to "push back" sin, until the redeemer came.  Christ came and was seen by God as the perfect eternal sacrifice, and He is declared to be the way to God, through faith in his sacrifice.

If death came in the world because it just the ending of biological processes--starting at microorganisms--then the story of Adam is a myth or some kind of symbolic story--then there is no such thing as the original sin, nor the sin nature of man which we inherited from Adam, and therefore the death of Christ is meaningless.  Then Christ and the apostles are either crazy, or liars.

Then there is no basis for the church or Christians, because there is no need for Christ, and Christ is the only person who authorizes the church--the Bible is the only source where the church finds its foundation.

SO to mesh the two is to say the church is just a social club of do-gooders, hypocrites, sexual deviates, and simpletons who need "the opiate for the masses."

Refried

It apparently doesn't bother you that you have adopted a conclusion-first approach to this discussion,or that your entire approach is an argumentum ad consequentiam. But it does mean that your approach has nothing in common with science, and that real scientists will just laugh at you.

Why don't you go away and only come back when you are able to contemplate changing your mind if the evidence demands it? We don't want to discuss the consequences for your religious views that accrue because of facts and reality, and you don't want to discuss facts and reality. That's not a good mix...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,15:13   

RFJE,


Why did your god go to a Roman backwater province, instead of a place where there were a lot more people.  Like China, like directly to the Roman Senate, etc?

Face it, even if evolution was wrong, there is no reason to believe nor think your holy book has anything even close to the "trooth" of what really happened.

The thing is this RFJE, if you found evidence that directly refutes your bible, is it:

1:  Something to study and verify.

2:  Lies by the devil/evil/somebody who hates your god

3:  Bad data that you can blithely throw away?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,15:16   

Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 21 2009,14:44)
Here's more, why are the atmosphere of Venus and Mars CO2?

Here's a better question:  Why do they still have CO2 atmospheres?

Because they will never cool with an an atmosphere of CO2 (Venus up to 600C).  So there will never be life to create O2.  

SO how did the earth cool loaded with CO2, and how did water vapor ever condense to form oceans?  We are only at what .04 % CO2 level today and everyone is worried about global warming.  How much more if we've got a "volcanic" atmosphere full of CO2.

And as I said--no 03 either to protect from radiation.  Where did O3 come from?  Must have been exhaled by an extinct species that is now dust.

And Louis said that no ozone would be  "positively helpful," during abiogenesis.  Would that be because radiation promotes chemical reactions?  What kind of chemical reactions would happen in a nasty atmosphere like the one presented by your theory, along with radiation coming in?


You guys don't even acknowledge the problems of your own theory.  The truth is that is was created at the same time.

  
Roland Anderson



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,15:18   

Gee whiz. I've posted a little and lurked a lot - but RFJE has been the turning point for me, which is to say that I was able to predict his/her behaviour from the outset.

I just want to say kudos to Louis for being so splendid about the whole thing. Yes I am gay actually but this doesn't involve man-love in that sense.

Keep up the good work!

Edited to say RFJE actually

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,15:19   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,13:16)
 
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 21 2009,14:44)
Here's more, why are the atmosphere of Venus and Mars CO2?

Here's a better question:  Why do they still have CO2 atmospheres?

Because they will never cool with an an atmosphere of CO2 (Venus up to 600C).  So there will never be life to create O2.  

SO how did the earth cool loaded with CO2, and how did water vapor ever condense to form oceans?  We are only at what .04 % CO2 level today and everyone is worried about global warming.  How much more if we've got a "volcanic" atmosphere full of CO2.

And as I said--no 03 either to protect from radiation.  Where did O3 come from?  Must have been exhaled by an extinct species that is now dust.

And Louis said that no ozone would be  "positively helpful," during abiogenesis.  Would that be because radiation promotes chemical reactions?  What kind of chemical reactions would happen in a nasty atmosphere like the one presented by your theory, along with radiation coming in?


You guys don't even acknowledge the problems of your own theory.  The truth is that is was created at the same time.

Oh yeah? Well why do we still have apes??? Huh??? Huh, mister Smart Guy??? :angry:

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,15:25   

RFJE: You still haven't provided any evidence to back up your accusations earlier in the thread. Please do.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,15:27   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2009,15:08)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,14:56)
According to the Bible, Adam started a chain reaction.  He brought sin, and because of sin he brought death.  The law was added later to define sin and show man what sin was.  But it had no power to help man to do right or forgive sin.  A complex sacrificial worship system was set up to "push back" sin, until the redeemer came.  Christ came and was seen by God as the perfect eternal sacrifice, and He is declared to be the way to God, through faith in his sacrifice.

If death came in the world because it just the ending of biological processes--starting at microorganisms--then the story of Adam is a myth or some kind of symbolic story--then there is no such thing as the original sin, nor the sin nature of man which we inherited from Adam, and therefore the death of Christ is meaningless.  Then Christ and the apostles are either crazy, or liars.

Then there is no basis for the church or Christians, because there is no need for Christ, and Christ is the only person who authorizes the church--the Bible is the only source where the church finds its foundation.

SO to mesh the two is to say the church is just a social club of do-gooders, hypocrites, sexual deviates, and simpletons who need "the opiate for the masses."

Refried

It apparently doesn't bother you that you have adopted a conclusion-first approach to this discussion,or that your entire approach is an argumentum ad consequentiam. But it does mean that your approach has nothing in common with science, and that real scientists will just laugh at you.

Why don't you go away and only come back when you are able to contemplate changing your mind if the evidence demands it? We don't want to discuss the consequences for your religious views that accrue because of facts and reality, and you don't want to discuss facts and reality. That's not a good mix...

You are not guilty of the same thing?  Has your big bang model or geologic time scale changed much?  Everything that doesn't fit into it is rejected as insanity.  

And you have completely taken it out of context, as you probably only skimmed it.  I was offered books by I believe Dr. G.H. by Christians who are trying to mesh evolution with the scriptural doctrine.  You can't have it both ways.

If your scriptural understanding says Adam and original sin are not important then you can do it, but you have just removed a doctrinal foundation stone from scripture which will cause the whole building to fall.

Just like if radiometric was called into doubt or disproved, alot of your theory would come crumbling down.

I've got to go.  No hard feelings guys--a little frustration because you have said things I did not say.

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,15:31   

Well, you have been throwing around a fair amount of straw, not to mention unfounded accusations. I believe there's some kind of guideline regarding such behaviour in a book you've claimed to have read. I may very well be wrong however, I have never been much into scriptural studies myself.

ETA: Grammar

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,15:37   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,14:08)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,19:56)
This is my last post.  I am going to study.  This has been a good experience for me.  The next time I will be much more informed from both sides--don't worry.  

As you have charged me with stupidity, hypocrisy, pride,  perversity, and ignorance, I will charge you with spiritual blindness, and people who are making their contribution for the spiritual ignorance and moral decay of our society.  

You can't even see the signs of the times.  Spiritually speaking, elementary.  You need to wake up.

Spiritually blind? Fuck off you patronising twat.

There are no "sides" in this. It's about the evidence. Scientists follow the evidence, creationists and other clowns try to shoe horn it into their preconceived notions of what they want to be the case. It ain't science no matter how pretty their degree certificates look.

Good riddance.

Louis

I'm trying to understand why you would get so flustered Louis.  Are you a believer?  If so, why would you curse me?    It's called the Adamic nature, or the flesh.  I have it too.

And if I were not being dissected like a lab rat I could for a minute give into that nature and do the same, but I choose not too.  

You insulted me in one of your posts by inferring that I "play" with myself.  I have a wife Louis.  And I did ignore that as I have many insults.  Y'all have a great life.

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,15:43   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,15:16)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 21 2009,14:44)
Here's more, why are the atmosphere of Venus and Mars CO2?

Here's a better question:  Why do they still have CO2 atmospheres?

Because they will never cool with an an atmosphere of CO2 (Venus up to 600C).  So there will never be life to create O2.  

SO how did the earth cool loaded with CO2, and how did water vapor ever condense to form oceans?  We are only at what .04 % CO2 level today and everyone is worried about global warming.  How much more if we've got a "volcanic" atmosphere full of CO2.

And as I said--no 03 either to protect from radiation.  Where did O3 come from?  Must have been exhaled by an extinct species that is now dust.

And Louis said that no ozone would be  "positively helpful," during abiogenesis.  Would that be because radiation promotes chemical reactions?  What kind of chemical reactions would happen in a nasty atmosphere like the one presented by your theory, along with radiation coming in?


You guys don't even acknowledge the problems of your own theory.  The truth is that is was created at the same time.

Wow, you are also unaware that 4 billion years ago the sun was about 70% as luminous as it is now.  In another billion or 2 years, the Earth will be too hot and our oceans will boil away.  See your science needs to think about these things and it falls flat.  If we didn't have such an atmosphere, the oceans would have frozen solid.

The reasons why Venus has a CO2 atmosphere as it does is that it never changed.  The Martian atmosphere has a different history.  I encourage you to go and find out what it is and how it differs from

Earth's atmosphere started to lose CO2 as organisms started to use CO2 for photosynthesis and more.  Earth's ancient CO2 atmosphere is locked in the chalk layers.  Not only did these organisms use CO2 for photosynthesis, they made CaCO3 for shells.  If you were to liberate the CO2 locked in these chalk formations, I think Earth's atmosphere would be worse than Venus.

OBTW, the facts that both Mars and Venus have CO2 atmospheres, that they are different and that one is frozen and the other molten, destroys your analogy.

Life we found can thrive in places we never knew before.  We know spores can live in the vacuum of space, in hydrothermic vents at 300C and unimaginable pressures in deep sea trenches and more.  It is also believed that the first organisms were in fact thermophyllic.

As to your "volcanic atmosphere", the reason we don't have more CO2 is that we have plants that do a really good job at removing those things from the atmosphere, or they did.  Nice to see that you're another denier of global warming as it doesn't fit into your world view.  The reason now is that we are deforesting the Earth faster than at anytime since the "great dyings" and we are pumping millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.  So we are adding to the CO2 budget while at the same time destroying what is needed to remove that very same CO2.

O3 comes from high altitude bombardment of 3*O2 molecules by radiation that transform it into 2*O3.  But I thought you knew that stuff.  Those things are what show you to be narrow minded, ignorant and such more than anything anyone here can say.

As to Louis and his comment about no ozone being present, he is the chemist, not me.  I do know that ozone will react very strongly with amino acids and destroy them, but again, you miss that fact that there was no life on land for almost 4 billion years.  It wasn't until the atmosphere was changed into an oxidizing one and the O2 molecules in the upper atmosphere was changed.  Ozone at low altitudes are toxic to us and almost all life I'm aware of.

As for "problems in our theory", you haven't presented one.  If you thin you did, you are deluding yourself.

Again, what is the difference, from science, to these terms:

1:  Postulate

2:  Hypothesis

3:  Theory

4:  Proof


Thanks in advance

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,15:55   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,15:27)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2009,15:08)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,14:56)
Refried

It apparently doesn't bother you that you have adopted a conclusion-first approach to this discussion,or that your entire approach is an argumentum ad consequentiam. But it does mean that your approach has nothing in common with science, and that real scientists will just laugh at you.

Why don't you go away and only come back when you are able to contemplate changing your mind if the evidence demands it? We don't want to discuss the consequences for your religious views that accrue because of facts and reality, and you don't want to discuss facts and reality. That's not a good mix...
You are not guilty of the same thing?  Has your big bang model or geologic time scale changed much?  Everything that doesn't fit into it is rejected as insanity.  

And you have completely taken it out of context, as you probably only skimmed it.  I was offered books by I believe Dr. G.H. by Christians who are trying to mesh evolution with the scriptural doctrine.  You can't have it both ways.

If your scriptural understanding says Adam and original sin are not important then you can do it, but you have just removed a doctrinal foundation stone from scripture which will cause the whole building to fall.

Just like if radiometric was called into doubt or disproved, alot of your theory would come crumbling down.

I've got to go.  No hard feelings guys--a little frustration because you have said things I did not say.

Science takes steps to remove personal bias and beliefs.  It is called "peer review".  That is something that ID and Creationist never does.

Yes, you can be a Christian and know that Evolution is how your god did it.  Besides, remember that pride thing again?  There you are full of yourself telling people they can't be a Xian as they don't believe exactly as you do.  Tell me again, how do you know that you follow your god exactly?

While your at it, which version of Genesis is right?

Your scripture also allowed for slavery (even how badly you can beat them) and the price fathers can sell their daughters for into slavery.  Yet that part has been removed.  Another question for you is do you follow kosher law?

Yeah, if radiometrics were nothing but a big pile of steaming crap, you'd be right.  Fortunately, that is in no danger.  Radiometric dating is on far more solid ground than your bible.  Your bible was written first about 1500 BCE from ancient Sumerian texts.  Ever read the "Epic of Gilgemesh"?  Compare to the story of Noah's canoe.

As to your last line, what did people say that you didn't?  I think that you'll be amazed at what you really did say and were called on it.  I think that is what makes you the most upset, that you were caught.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,16:01   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,16:37)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,14:08)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,19:56)
This is my last post.  I am going to study.  This has been a good experience for me.  The next time I will be much more informed from both sides--don't worry.  

As you have charged me with stupidity, hypocrisy, pride,  perversity, and ignorance, I will charge you with spiritual blindness, and people who are making their contribution for the spiritual ignorance and moral decay of our society.  

You can't even see the signs of the times.  Spiritually speaking, elementary.  You need to wake up.

Spiritually blind? Fuck off you patronising twat.

There are no "sides" in this. It's about the evidence. Scientists follow the evidence, creationists and other clowns try to shoe horn it into their preconceived notions of what they want to be the case. It ain't science no matter how pretty their degree certificates look.

Good riddance.

Louis

I'm trying to understand why you would get so flustered Louis.  Are you a believer?  If so, why would you curse me?    It's called the Adamic nature, or the flesh.  I have it too.

And if I were not being dissected like a lab rat I could for a minute give into that nature and do the same, but I choose not too.  

You insulted me in one of your posts by inferring that I "play" with myself.  I have a wife Louis.  And I did ignore that as I have many insults.  Y'all have a great life.

That God person you keep ranting about - he did tell you not to lie, didn't he?

Why do you always ignore him?

You think he gave you one of the most powerful tools in existence - a learning mind - and you choose to waste it. You don't want to learn. You spit in God's face, and then you break his commandments.

You spend so much time trying to "save" other people - have you ever thought about yourself?

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,16:03   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,21:37)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,14:08)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,19:56)
This is my last post.  I am going to study.  This has been a good experience for me.  The next time I will be much more informed from both sides--don't worry.  

As you have charged me with stupidity, hypocrisy, pride,  perversity, and ignorance, I will charge you with spiritual blindness, and people who are making their contribution for the spiritual ignorance and moral decay of our society.  

You can't even see the signs of the times.  Spiritually speaking, elementary.  You need to wake up.

Spiritually blind? Fuck off you patronising twat.

There are no "sides" in this. It's about the evidence. Scientists follow the evidence, creationists and other clowns try to shoe horn it into their preconceived notions of what they want to be the case. It ain't science no matter how pretty their degree certificates look.

Good riddance.

Louis

I'm trying to understand why you would get so flustered Louis.  Are you a believer?  If so, why would you curse me?    It's called the Adamic nature, or the flesh.  I have it too.

And if I were not being dissected like a lab rat I could for a minute give into that nature and do the same, but I choose not too.  

You insulted me in one of your posts by inferring that I "play" with myself.  I have a wife Louis.  And I did ignore that as I have many insults.  Y'all have a great life.

LOL curse you? You think a couple of naughty words equals a curse? Hardly dear boy! They are nothing more than a shirt, vulgar and contemptuous response to fatuous nonsense.

I get annoyed with people like you because instead of learning something, and actually engaging people and topics honestly, you wave your hands about, play silly games and accuse others of nebulous (and false) crimes like causing moral decay etc.

Remove the beam from your own eye RFJE, before you tackle the mote in mine.

I take it you are NEVER going to answer the questions I asked you pages ago, or even acknowledge them?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2324
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,16:06   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,12:56)
If these well-meaning folks want to combine evolution with the Bible, they would have to construct a model that does not "destroy" Adam.  Let me explain.

Please indulge me even hypothetically for a moment, as if I'm reporting my findings of mythology.

According to the Bible, Adam started a chain reaction.  He brought sin, and because of sin he brought death.  The law was added later to define sin and show man what sin was.  But it had no power to help man to do right or forgive sin.  A complex sacrificial worship system was set up to "push back" sin, until the redeemer came.  Christ came and was seen by God as the perfect eternal sacrifice, and He is declared to be the way to God, through faith in his sacrifice.

If death came in the world because it just the ending of biological processes--starting at microorganisms--then the story of Adam is a myth or some kind of symbolic story--then there is no such thing as the original sin, nor the sin nature of man which we inherited from Adam, and therefore the death of Christ is meaningless.  Then Christ and the apostles are either crazy, or liars.

Then there is no basis for the church or Christians, because there is no need for Christ, and Christ is the only person who authorizes the church--the Bible is the only source where the church finds its foundation.

SO to mesh the two is to say the church is just a social club of do-gooders, hypocrites, sexual deviates, and simpletons who need "the opiate for the masses."

I see that your theology is a primitive as your nonexistent grasp of science. As a friend (and professional {ordained} Christian) once observed, "When I sin, I don't need to blame God, or Adam." You have not read any of the books I recommended above, and then you arrogantly demand that they satisfy your weak biblical understanding.

It is commonly pointed out that animals don't sin because they act in a way consistent with their nature. (I have had dogs with a seemingly highly developed sense of guilt- but this can be better seen as a typical placation behavior... Maybe that is all we have). Humans view themselves as apart from nature. (Then there are many that turn about and insist they are competent to tell us all just what God(s) want, demand and expect). We humans invented sin, and this can easily be reconciled with Genesis. We humans are also the only critters that experience strong dissociative states. We even induce them for religious and recreational activities.

There is not the least need for a literal Genesis to identify to origin of sin- or at least the origin of the notion of sin.  

You need to do some reading about the Bible, too.

I recommend starting with some good studies of Genesis:

Since the doctrine of Original Sin was largely from Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) you must read "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) particularly the translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

Then (in alphabetical order)

Jewish Publication Society
2004 “The Jewish Study Bible: TANAKA translation” Oxford University Press.

Speiser, E. A.
1962 "Genesis: Introduction, Translation and Notes"  New York: Anchor Bible- Doubleday

And for a more literalist approach,

Hamilton, Victor P.
1990 “The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co.

To contextualize Genesis within the Bible;

Barr, James
2005 “History and Ideology in the Old Testament: Biblical Studies at the end of a Millennium” Oxford University Press

Blenkinsopp, Joseph
1992 The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible The Anchor Bible Reference Library  New York: ABRL/Doubleday

Dahood, Mitchell
1965 Psalms I, 1-50: Introduction, Translation and Notes  New York: Anchor Bible- Doubleday

Pope, Marvin H.
1965 “Job: A new translation with Introduction and Commentary” Anchor Bible Vol. 15, New York: ABRL/Doubleday

The first volume of Dahood's 3 vol study of the Psalms in essential as much for the linguistic studies in his introduction as anything else. Text Critical analysis of some of the later Psalms, e.g. Ps 89 are particularly interesting, but you will need the second volume for that one. This should lead you to a more careful reading of the larger, extrabiblical literature of the Ancient Near East. Here I recommend;

Bodine, Walter R., (Ed.)
1992 "Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew." Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns

Brotzman, Ellis R.
1994 "Old Testament textural criticism: a practical introduction." Grand Rapids: Baker Academic

Brown F., Driver S., Briggs C.
2007 (reprint from 1906) “Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic: With Strong’s Numbering”  Peabody Mass: Hendrickson Publishers (The Strong’s catalog #s was added by Hendrickson Publishers).

(I assume you already have some version of Strong's. I found a recent edition, “The Strongest Strong’s exhaustive concordance of the Bible (KJV) for the 21st Century, 2001 edition (original 1894)” revised and edited Kohlenberger, James R. III, Swanson, James A. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, to be superior to others I have seen, or used).

Dalley, Stephanie
2000 "Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others." Revised Oxford: Oxford University Press

Friedman, Richard Elliott
1987 Who Wrote the Bible? New York:Harper and Row (Paperback Edition)

Kramer, Samuel Noah
1972 "Sumerian Mythology: A study of Spiritual and Literary Achievement in the Third Millenium B.C."  OP 1961 New York: University of Pennsylvania Press/ Harper.

Now this will lead into more linguistics and the Bible. Here are some excellent introductions- particularly to the remarkable literature from Ugarit;

Cross, Frank Moore
1973 "Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel."  Boston: Harvard University Press

Matthews, Victor H., Don C. Benjamin
2006 “Old Testament Parallels: Law and Stories from the Ancient Near East” New York: The Paulist Press.

Pardee, Dennis
2002 "Writings from the Ancient World Vol. 10: Ritual and Cult at Ugarit" Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

Parker, Simon B. (Editor)
1997 "Ugarit Narrative Poetry  Translated by Mark S. Smith, Simon B. Parker, Edward L Greenstein, Theodore J. Lewis, David Marcus, Vol. 9 Writings from the Ancient World." Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

Sparks, Kenton L.
2005 “Ancient Texts for the Study of  the Hebrew Bible” Peabody PA: Hendrickson Publishers

Walton, John H.
2006 “Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament” Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Press

Now that you are ready for reading some solid synthesis of biblical history and theology, I suggest;

Barr, James
2005 “History and Ideology in the Old Testament: Biblical Studies at the end of a Millennium” Oxford University Press

Smith, Mark S.
2002 “The Early History of God, 2nd ed.” Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing
_
2003 “The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts”  Oxford University Press.

Zevit, Ziony
2001 "The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches” New York: Continuum Press

It is possible, in fact necessary for your claim to be an expert in the Bible to be accepted, you have already read most of these books. If not, I reject your biblical competence assertions as well.

Edited by Dr.GH on Feb. 21 2009,14:23

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,16:07   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,21:16)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 21 2009,14:44)
Here's more, why are the atmosphere of Venus and Mars CO2?

Here's a better question:  Why do they still have CO2 atmospheres?

Because they will never cool with an an atmosphere of CO2 (Venus up to 600C).  So there will never be life to create O2.  

SO how did the earth cool loaded with CO2, and how did water vapor ever condense to form oceans?  We are only at what .04 % CO2 level today and everyone is worried about global warming.  How much more if we've got a "volcanic" atmosphere full of CO2.

And as I said--no 03 either to protect from radiation.  Where did O3 come from?  Must have been exhaled by an extinct species that is now dust.

And Louis said that no ozone would be  "positively helpful," during abiogenesis.  Would that be because radiation promotes chemical reactions?  What kind of chemical reactions would happen in a nasty atmosphere like the one presented by your theory, along with radiation coming in?


You guys don't even acknowledge the problems of your own theory.  The truth is that is was created at the same time.

Since you a) are remarkably ignorant of exactly what those theories (oh yes, there are more than one) are, and b) what "problems" may or may not exist, who are you to lecture anyone on any topic of science?

RFJE, you couldn't even get the difference between a bond and macromolecule sorted out, or the difference between solvation and hydrolysis right, on what basis do you claim to know science better than people who can distinguish these very basic (sub highschool) things?

Answer my questions, start at a different point in the process and you may find a miraculous change in your reception. Carry on the way you are and you will reap what you sow.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,16:08   

To be sure RFJE, lying by omission is still lying, correct?

So why don't you answer the question put to you?  Answer them honestly as "I don't know" is perfectly valid and honest (if you really don't know that is).

Answer the questions Louis gave you, then mine, Nerull's and the rest.  A little soul searching will do you good.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,16:09   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,13:27)
You are not guilty of the same thing?  Has your big bang model or geologic time scale changed much?  Everything that doesn't fit into it is rejected as insanity.  

This is just flat wrong. Not only are you shockingly ignorant of basic chemistry, you appear to be completely ignorant of the history of science as well.

Wikipedia has a decent synopsis on the age of the earth. The consensus has changed repeatedly based on new evidence. The fact that the ~4 billion years estimate has stood the last 70 years or so is based on a confluence of good evidence, not dogmatism.

Both a billion+ year old earth and the big bang* were greeted with skepticism and even ridicule until enough evidence was gathered to make the conclusions inescapable. This is something you could get from a basic popular history of science, a childrens encyclopedia, or even teh intertoobs!

* recall that the term itself was originally coined to ridicule the idea.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,16:13   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,15:27)
You are not guilty of the same thing?  Has your big bang model or geologic time scale changed much?  Everything that doesn't fit into it is rejected as insanity.  

If you knew anything about the history of science, you would understand how ridiculous those sentences are. But since you are clearly as ignorant about that as you are about everything else, here's a clue-by-four about the history of the geologic time scale, and here's another about this history of Big Bang theory. There is no reason to believe that science has stopped exploring and modifying those areas of research.

 
Quote
And you have completely taken it out of context, as you probably only skimmed it.  I was offered books by I believe Dr. G.H. by Christians who are trying to mesh evolution with the scriptural doctrine.  You can't have it both ways.

No, you can't have it both ways. I prefer reality, you prefer superstition. When an implication of reality perturbs you ("Waaah! Your reality means that my superstitous goat-herder stories can't be true!!!one!! eleventyone!!!"), you reject reality. That's fine for you, I suppose, but it's fairly pathetic for most sentient humans.
 
Quote
If your scriptural understanding says Adam and original sin are not important then you can do it, but you have just removed a doctrinal foundation stone from scripture which will cause the whole building to fall.

Yep, but I'm fine with that, 'cuz I'm a scientist. Frankly, I'd be thrilled if someone had the evidence that called evolution into question, because it would mean that lots of structures would fall, and those would be exciting times for science! You, on the other hand, can't handle it at all when your evidence-free conclusions are shown to be wrong. That's the difference between you and any decent scientist; we live for the moment when evidence overturns our conclusions! You couldn't handle it.

Come back when you can.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,16:22   

RFJE, seems you are on my turf now.

It would take years to teach you so I'll just let you in on something you also seem to be unaware of: The Bible is full of myths; Adam and Eve is but one of them; Jesus Christ is another.

But, and this is what so many people resist: The myths have a meaning (Well, Adam and Eve was just the only explanation they wrer able to come up with) but many other myths like paradise, the tree of knowledge, the fall and many others have a hidden meaning; that's why they are myths.

Only with the aid of a proper interpreter may the real meaning of the myths be realized. OK, when one has learned what to look for and knows what lies behind one may decipher the mytsh by oneself.

But literalism have closed the door to understanding of scripture form people. That started about 2000 years ago.

As for Jesus Christ, it is one of the most powerful symbols that mankind have in its possession. The first expression of that myth that we know about was made by the Egyptians - the Osiris myth.

As you should know, Osiris was a dying and resurrecting god-man, in the same way as Bacchus-Dionysus, Attis and a host of others. They all share the same fate - to die and to rise again, and when they all happen to perform that trick at or around the time of winter solstice, do you think that's just a coincidence?

Precession of the Equinoxes have shifted the time of celebration from 6th January to 24th December. That shows the myth is of very ancient origins.

I've got to stop, I only have to point out that religion is not about a physical, or even spiritual life after death, but about life here and now, in this lifetime. It is not possible to cover the subject of 'eternal life', what that actually means here.

WRT God, God is a name given to a reality, but the reality of God has nothing with the creation of the universe, planets or life to do.

That is quite another 'god' that we need not bother with.

What matters is God as the highest power in our soul. "The Kingdom of Heaven is within."

That's about all true theology I can offer this late in the evening, my bed is waiting.

I suggest you begin yuor studies with "The Jesus Mysteries" by Peter Gandy and 'Timothy Freke, tehn you may continue with Jesus and the Lost Goddess by the same authors, and even one of their latest, "The Laughing Jesus", I haven't read that one yet.

You might also find Albert Schweitzer interesting. And much more.

Also Carl Gustav Jung - he said he didn't have to believe in God, he knew God existed. I don't know what Jung thought about evolution but I suppose he didn't bother one way or the other.

Jung got the idea about archetypes from the Gnostics; I am a gnostic. The Gnostics seems to have been enemy #1for the early Christian literalists...

Good night.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,16:34   

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 21 2009,16:22)
RFJE, seems you are on my turf now.

(snip)

Good night.

Hey, do you think we can get into fundie churches and "teach the controversy"?

We can have "Religious Freedom Acts" where all religions are taught including and especially the problems with fundieism.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,22:06   

RFJE is very confusing at times, and wrote:

Quote
The popular hypothesis about the atmosphere is that it was formed by volcanoes spewing out CO2, water vapor, methane, nitrogen among other things ---no O2.  

Therefore the IMPLICATION is that were alot of O atoms and they were underground, as in UNDER volcanoes.  The O atoms were in such quantity that they bonded with H, were spewed out by volcanoes as water vapor, eventually condensed, and formed OCEANS, not ponds.  That's alot of O atoms.  (i did not have to have a degree in chemistry to figure this out).


Your first paragraph appears correct.  Your second, however, is kind of silly.  Why would the sole implication be that which you state?  From what I understand, the currently-accepted "best guess" for where earth's oceans came from is from bombardment by asteroids and comets early in it's history.

As for there being a lot of oxygen "under volcanoes", well, duh!  Oxygen is one of the most abundant elements in earth's crust, almost invariably bound up with silicon, which is the most abundant element in the crust.  Being bound up like that means that it's not in a gaseous form, like it is in our current atmosphere.  There's an abundant amount of evidence from all over the earth that, early on, the atmosphere contained no (or very little) free (gaseous) oxygen; and then, at some point in the distant past, that changed and oxygen became a major player in the earth's atmosphere, like it is today.  BIF's are just one piece of that evidence.

In that same post, he wrote:

Quote
This oxygen crisis that I keep "yapping about" is in YOUR theory's geologic timescale.  God forbid that I should say ANYTHING that is associated with creationism, so I use mainstream sources.   The O2 catastrophe is there for all to read.


I don't see why atmospheric oxygenation is a "crisis" or "catastrophe".  It was a big change, but not big enough to wipe out the bacteria that created it.  Why do you think so?  And what "mainstream" source do you mean?

And later:

Quote
Here's a better question:  Why do they still have CO2 atmospheres?

Because they will never cool with an an atmosphere of CO2 (Venus up to 600C).  So there will never be life to create O2.  


Ummm, I think the average temperature on Mars is far colder than on earth.  To quote a popular song, it ain't the kind of place to raise yer kids.  It may have even HAD primitive life, just like on earth!  Neat-O, eh?  And not so hard, either.  And just think, we now know of at least 100 other planets orbiting other stars!  Life's probably common, ya know.  But I'll hedge that bet until better evidence comes in, eh!

Further on:

Quote
SO how did the earth cool loaded with CO2, and how did water vapor ever condense to form oceans?  We are only at what .04 % CO2 level today and everyone is worried about global warming.  How much more if we've got a "volcanic" atmosphere full of CO2.


The CO2 levels may have been at about the level they are now.  Or the sun may have been cooler.  There are a myriad of other possibilities that you haven't considered, evidently.  By the way, the atmosphere's predominantly nitrogen; but you know that, right?

More:

Quote
And as I said--no 03 either to protect from radiation.  Where did O3 come from?  Must have been exhaled by an extinct species that is now dust.


Currently O3 is produced by O2 interacting with the sun's radiation at high altitudes.  Why wouldn't that be the case as soon as O2 became common?  Many anerobic bacteria species are resistant to radiation.  Radiation levels could have been different in the past, as I've aluded to earlier.  I don't understand why this is a problem for "evolutionists".

And:

Quote
Just like if radiometric was called into doubt or disproved, alot of your theory would come crumbling down.


Well, I have to agree with you there.  Still, since radiometric dating disproval would take an awful lot of doing (handwaving won't work) you better get cracking and show me some objective, scientific evidence that the specific type of dating technique used in any particular dating environment is incorrect.  Don't be shy, but do keep in mind that I (and some of the others here) have direct experience in working with the same theory that says that radiometric dating works the way it works.  In my case, it's what drove a submarine around.  

Get hot!!

  
bfish



Posts: 267
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,23:28   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,11:27)
1) It's not Mr Louis.




Um..... am I really the only one who found this sig-worthy?

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,01:32   

Quote

Just like if radiometric was called into doubt or disproved, alot of your theory would come crumbling down.


Not really. Radiometric methods given ages with considerably more precision than simply measuring the thickness of layers of rock. But rock layer thicknesses would still give the general idea, even if the margin of error might be fairly large.

Henry

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,04:03   

Quote (bfish @ Feb. 22 2009,05:28)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,11:27)
1) It's not Mr Louis.




Um..... am I really the only one who found this sig-worthy?

Yes.

If someone is going to patronisingly play at civility by pissing about with titles then I demand to be called by my proper title: The Right Honourable Third Earl of Wessexshire and Piddletrenthide, His Holiness the Freelance Pope Louis KCVO OG OM PPP ROFLMAO.

Anyway, who uses titles with someone's first name? The man's a twat.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,04:24   

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 22 2009,07:32)
Quote

Just like if radiometric was called into doubt or disproved, alot of your theory would come crumbling down.


Not really. Radiometric methods given ages with considerably more precision than simply measuring the thickness of layers of rock. But rock layer thicknesses would still give the general idea, even if the margin of error might be fairly large.

Henry

Every time I read IDCists longingly wish for a day when radiometric dating has been discredited, I cannot help but to associate that with newly beaten villains from comic books of old.

You win today science, but just you wait, REVENGE WILL BE MINE!


ETA: Cat pic.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,20:55   

Quote (khan @ Feb. 21 2009,13:00)
Is there a medical term for this particular delusion?

i thought that definition had already been defined as "daniel".

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,04:09   

In further reference to RFJE getting all uppity when told to fuck off, I offer the following, not as defence, but as elaboration. From now on I feel these should be standard replies to persistent loons:



Professor Sir William Connolly explaining the use of the term.

In contempt.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,05:58   

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 22 2009,09:32)
Quote

Just like if radiometric was called into doubt or disproved, alot of your theory would come crumbling down.


Not really. Radiometric methods given ages with considerably more precision than simply measuring the thickness of layers of rock. But rock layer thicknesses would still give the general idea, even if the margin of error might be fairly large.

Henry

Be careful how you use the words seem and LARGE.

The margin of error should be only ever expressed as a proportion of the quantity you are measuring.

If you are expressing an error in seconds as an error of units of time consequential only in fortnights the error will "seem" LARGE.

Another way of looking at it is to compare one Religious Myth's unit of sacred scripture to another Religious Myth's unit of sacred scripture measured in bushels and or, and / or volumes and / or the time it would take to read them all (centuries for one person in the case of the Vedas).

The entire Toy Story of Genesis (I've only seen the cartoon version) compared to say the Hindu Upanishads with it's much more compelling Creation Myth have thousands more volumes thus indicating a HUGE conduit to the Intelligent Designer.

It's almost as though Hindus had a broadband connection to the almighty creator himself!

Whoever this latest version of the inadequate in search of the improbable is only goes to prove God of the Bible fucked up on the (lack of) information front.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Bing



Posts: 144
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,11:39   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 22 2009,04:03)
Anyway, who uses titles with someone's first name? The man's a twat.


  • King George
  • Queen Elizabeth
  • Prince Charles

    etc.

    I believe that's your people's doing old bean.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,12:24   

Quote (Bing @ Feb. 23 2009,17:39)
 
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 22 2009,04:03)
Anyway, who uses titles with someone's first name? The man's a twat.


  • King George
  • Queen Elizabeth
  • Prince Charles

    etc.

    I believe that's your people's doing old bean.

Twats the lot of them, your point?

Louis

ETA None of them are their full titles anyway. It's Queen Liz of something. I have no knowledge of George, Liz his ok, but I maintain that despite is nice sausages and delicious biscuits Chuck is a twat.

--------------
Bye.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,12:57   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,11:19)
Quote (dnmlthr @ Feb. 21 2009,13:05)
Alright, hold on, let me get this straight. You willingly state that you don't know much about science, yet you are still convinced that an important part of mainstream science has to be wrong.

Don't you see the disconnect here? A yes or no answer will suffice.

Excuse me, I never said that--you say that.  If I have taken science in high school, lived 47 years and watched many science programs, read science mags and books, read ICR materials, then I do know "something" about science.

Don't stall off questions that I ask about the O2 catastrophe by attacking my knowledge of science.  Obviously I have a fundamental knowledge or I would not be able to even ask the question!

I just fell off my chair and my bum hurts.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,13:17   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,13:56)
This is my last post.  I am going to study.  This has been a good experience for me.  The next time I will be much more informed from both sides--don't worry.  

As you have charged me with stupidity, hypocrisy, pride,  perversity, and ignorance, I will charge you with spiritual blindness, and people who are making their contribution for the spiritual ignorance and moral decay of our society.  [emphasis mine]

You can't even see the signs of the times.  Spiritually speaking, elementary.  You need to wake up.

I wish I had a dollar for every person who has said this to me. Yeah, slather it on, brother.

The ungratitude, the incomprehensible ungratitude and hubris of those who because of this shrieking void within themselves, that they call "faith," and this goody-two-shoes projection of themselves, that they call "Christ," will not pursue knowledge worth knowing and thereby refuse to be a model of the informed Christian. I cannot be a model for believers; only other believers can, if they only would. You have a model in Wes, but since you disdain and judge him too, what can I do but welcome your association of him with us atheists. What a compliment.

Bye-bye.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,14:02   

Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 23 2009,13:17)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,13:56)
This is my last post.  I am going to study.  This has been a good experience for me.  The next time I will be much more informed from both sides--don't worry.  

As you have charged me with stupidity, hypocrisy, pride,  perversity, and ignorance, I will charge you with spiritual blindness, and people who are making their contribution for the spiritual ignorance and moral decay of our society.  [emphasis mine]

You can't even see the signs of the times.  Spiritually speaking, elementary.  You need to wake up.

I wish I had a dollar for every person who has said this to me. Yeah, slather it on, brother.

The ungratitude, the incomprehensible ungratitude and hubris of those who because of this shrieking void within themselves, that they call "faith," and this goody-two-shoes projection of themselves, that they call "Christ," will not pursue knowledge worth knowing and thereby refuse to be a model of the informed Christian. I cannot be a model for believers; only other believers can, if they only would. You have a model in Wes, but since you disdain and judge him too, what can I do but welcome your association of him with us atheists. What a compliment.

Bye-bye.

Don't be too hard on the boy Kristine.

After all it must be such a burden to carry such a cross, knowing that while you may not be perfect (but much closer than others you profess not to judge) that you are forgiven no matter how much of a self-important, judgmental hypocrite you are.

Not all of us can have such blinders on and still function, and neither can he.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,16:51   

Mayberry RFD wrote:


Quote
As you have charged me with stupidity, hypocrisy, pride,  perversity, and ignorance, I will charge you with spiritual blindness, and people who are making their contribution for the spiritual ignorance and moral decay of our society.  [emphasis mine]


Let's see.

Stupidity.  Check!

Hypocracy.  Check!

Pride.  Check!

Perversity.  Not check, but we're willing to go there.

Ignorance.  Check

As for "spiritual blindness" I'm in the dark and don't have a ghost of an idea what you're talking about.

As for morel decay, it's best to cook them in butter and flame them in brandy no more than 24 hours after picking.  Otherwise, you're right, they'll decay.  But, I know about morel decay, so, what's your point?

Does this mean that Mayberry RFD is canceled?  Does Opie know?

  
Rrr



Posts: 146
Joined: Nov. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,09:53   

Quote
As for morel decay, it's best to cook them in butter and flame them in brandy no more than 24 hours after picking.  Otherwise, you're right, they'll decay.  But, I know about morel decay, so, what's your point?

Um, not being a botanist nor a natural Anglophone but presuming you refer to the fungus, Doc Bill, I feel a warning is called for here.

Those mushrooms, which look a bit like someone's rotting brain, contain a toxic and carcinogenous substance. Therefore it used to be recommended to either dry them (in a place where people would not be exposed to the fumes) or thoroughly and repeatedly soak them in plenty of water for hours, or preferably both, before cooking and consuming them, and not too often. Modern official wisdom seems to be to avoid any consumption at all.

They do taste good, though! And they come out in Spring, unlike most other edible fungi where I live.

  
Rrr



Posts: 146
Joined: Nov. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,13:28   

Traditional apologies for auto-response.
Deeper (slightly; wikipedia:)) study highlights two possible mistakes of mine.

1. Doc Bill may have been referring to some kind of solanum, a family containing not only tomato and potato but also a number of other more or less edible plants, often replete in "alkaloids" such as solanine and atropine, which are pretty poisonous. Don't know how that is influenced by burning buttered brandy, though. Forgive me if I abstain from experiments.

2. My cursory examination of a hand dictionary turned up the same phrase for not only Toppmurkla, Morchella conica but also Stenmurkla, Gyromitra esculenta or False morel, which has indeed been recently found* to be more poisonous than previously thought. Christer Andersson: Stenmurklan - olämplig att äta. Toxikologiska enheten, Livsmedelsverket. (In Swedish, sorry.)

3. Finally I must make it absolutely clear that my reference to rotting brains had nothing whatsoever to do with any participant in this particular discussion, and it was certainly not intended to be taken as an insinuation about any person's spongiform encephalopathy.
  :O
*by hydrolysis with hydrocloric acid :-) to release all of the hydrazine compounds

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,15:40   

i reckon he was gabbin bout molly moochers.  they are fixin to stump up round these parts.

i don't eat no gyromitra and I don't care what david arora says.

you can git allergified to morchella but it might take you about 40 years.  i do know some minnesotan types around here that claim they don't eat them any more.  i don't trust folks that go ice fishing for fun however no matter how well they know their bug dicks.  

can't wait to get some morals!  and some morels too!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,16:27   

OK, I was jacking with Mayberry RFD about his "morals" comments and simply trying to pun it up.

I ain't eatin' no toadstools!

However, I had a friend who was an expert, experienced morel hunter and he had a "spot" in some oak woods where these things grow well that he visited each year.  A sack of those things could be sold for $1000.

Apparently, they weren't poisonous.

When it comes to mushrooms I stick to one species I know well:

kroger buttonus

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,16:30   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 24 2009,16:27)
OK, I was jacking with Mayberry RFD about his "morals" comments and simply trying to pun it up.

I ain't eatin' no toadstools!

However, I had a friend who was an expert, experienced morel hunter and he had a "spot" in some oak woods where these things grow well that he visited each year.  A sack of those things could be sold for $1000.

Apparently, they weren't poisonous.

When it comes to mushrooms I stick to one species I know well:

kroger buttonus

where can a man sell a sack of morals for $1000?

i found 172 last year but most of them were the little grey ones.  a few blacks and about 40 big fat yaller ones.

i'm counting off the days until it's time to load up little man and head over to the local game lands.  whodathunk you could find ginseng and morels in this industrial moonscape?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,20:33   

'Ras wrote:

Quote
i don't eat no gyromitra and I don't care what david arora says.

you can git allergified to morchella but it might take you about 40 years.  i do know some minnesotan types around here that claim they don't eat them any more.  i don't trust folks that go ice fishing for fun however no matter how well they know their bug dicks.  

can't wait to get some morals!  and some morels too!


Dem dere Minnesota types is prolly fibben to ya down dere cuzza up here we kinda hogs 'em an dey only grow 'bout a month inna year.  Cuzza da snow.  I useta like ta go ice fishin' too but I don' like da tastea ice.  

:)       :)      :)       :)

Oh, by da way, da only mushrooms dat I hearda sellin' fer $1000 was dem kinda dat turn blue and make ya laugh a lot.  Not dat I know anyting 'bout da brown an smelly of it all, eh.  Just ta keep myself outta da hoosegow, ya know, eh.   :)     :)    :)

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,20:49   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,15:37)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,14:08)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,19:56)
This is my last post.  I am going to study.  This has been a good experience for me.  The next time I will be much more informed from both sides--don't worry.  

As you have charged me with stupidity, hypocrisy, pride,  perversity, and ignorance, I will charge you with spiritual blindness, and people who are making their contribution for the spiritual ignorance and moral decay of our society.  

You can't even see the signs of the times.  Spiritually speaking, elementary.  You need to wake up.

Spiritually blind? Fuck off you patronising twat.

There are no "sides" in this. It's about the evidence. Scientists follow the evidence, creationists and other clowns try to shoe horn it into their preconceived notions of what they want to be the case. It ain't science no matter how pretty their degree certificates look.

Good riddance.

Louis

I'm trying to understand why you would get so flustered Louis.  Are you a believer?  If so, why would you curse me?    It's called the Adamic nature, or the flesh.  I have it too.

And if I were not being dissected like a lab rat I could for a minute give into that nature and do the same, but I choose not too.  

You insulted me in one of your posts by inferring that I "play" with myself.  I have a wife Louis.  And I did ignore that as I have many insults.  Y'all have a great life.

He didn't curse you so I'll do you the favor:

Oh mighty dark lord may you seek RFJE's soul and take it for your own. Blind him and bind him in your almighty self and let him dwell in hell forever.

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,20:55   

Quote (jeffox @ Feb. 24 2009,21:33)
'Ras wrote:

Quote
i don't eat no gyromitra and I don't care what david arora says.

you can git allergified to morchella but it might take you about 40 years.  i do know some minnesotan types around here that claim they don't eat them any more.  i don't trust folks that go ice fishing for fun however no matter how well they know their bug dicks.  

can't wait to get some morals!  and some morels too!


Dem dere Minnesota types is prolly fibben to ya down dere cuzza up here we kinda hogs 'em an dey only grow 'bout a month inna year.  Cuzza da snow.  I useta like ta go ice fishin' too but I don' like da tastea ice.  

:)       :)      :)       :)

Oh, by da way, da only mushrooms dat I hearda sellin' fer $1000 was dem kinda dat turn blue and make ya laugh a lot.  Not dat I know anyting 'bout da brown an smelly of it all, eh.  Just ta keep myself outta da hoosegow, ya know, eh.   :)     :)    :)

You shall die alone, and the raccoons shall chew on your bones.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,21:07   

Khan wrote:

Quote
You shall die alone, and the raccoons shall chew on your bones.


No!!   No!!    Anyt'ing but dat!  Dem dere raccoons is da sunzabitches a da whole Koddampt woods, eh!  Any fox knowzat, ya know.  I'd radder haf a squirrel bite offa my. . . . . er,

How'd we get into dis, anywayz?

:)    :)     :)

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,21:19   

Quote (jeffox @ Feb. 24 2009,22:07)
Khan wrote:

Quote
You shall die alone, and the raccoons shall chew on your bones.


No!!   No!!    Anyt'ing but dat!  Dem dere raccoons is da sunzabitches a da whole Koddampt woods, eh!  Any fox knowzat, ya know.  I'd radder haf a squirrel bite offa my. . . . . er,

How'd we get into dis, anywayz?

:)    :)     :)

That was meant for the RFJT.

I would not give your bones to the raccoons.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,21:29   

Gotcha.  My bad, sorry 'bout that.

See dat, RFJE?  Yer gonna get da raccoon treatment, fer sure.  (shudders at the thought)

:p     :)

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,08:49   

How about you RFJE?

Can you show us what ID or whatever you believe in actually works?  I've asked Daniel and he seems to have slinked away.  Remember, if you are going to have something to replace Evolution, it must stand on its own and not called upon in anyone's perceived notions of how something else fails.

Thanks in advance.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,10:48   

Quote (khan @ Feb. 25 2009,05:19)
Quote (jeffox @ Feb. 24 2009,22:07)
Khan wrote:

 
Quote
You shall die alone, and the raccoons shall chew on your bones.


No!!   No!!    Anyt'ing but dat!  Dem dere raccoons is da sunzabitches a da whole Koddampt woods, eh!  Any fox knowzat, ya know.  I'd radder haf a squirrel bite offa my. . . . . er,

How'd we get into dis, anywayz?

:)    :)     :)

That was meant for the RFJT.

I would not give your bones to the raccoons.

no?

I would, those little fuckers would eat you alive if they had a chance!

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,11:09   

Quote (khan @ Feb. 24 2009,21:55)
You shall die alone, and the raccoons shall chew on your bones.

Just make sure it happens in that order.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,17:43   

Quote
(khan @ Feb. 24 2009,21:55)
Quote

You shall die alone, and the raccoons shall chew on your bones.

Just make sure it happens in that order.


I think that that's up to the raccoons.  Talk to them.  No, wait. . . .

:)    :p    :)

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2324
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2009,00:14   

My dog, who has never killed anything very much bigger than himself, "treed" two raccoons about his size just the other night. I was reminded of about 15 years ago when I was working on a mountain lion project. We had two puppies that were being trained as lion dogs. They kept on the trail even after the "experienced" dogs had quit. And they treed the lion.



That's me on the right. (A much younger me).

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,13:11   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 28 2009,01:14)
My dog, who has never killed anything very much bigger than himself, "treed" two raccoons about his size just the other night. I was reminded of about 15 years ago when I was working on a mountain lion project. We had two puppies that were being trained as lion dogs. They kept on the trail even after the "experienced" dogs had quit. And they treed the lion.



That's me on the right. (A much younger me).

Your words say "about 15 years ago" but your mustaches speak of an era long-past.  ;)

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,13:17   

Hey! Don't bash the 'tash/don't knock it until you've tried it etc.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
bfish



Posts: 267
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,18:01   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 27 2009,22:14)
My dog, who has never killed anything very much bigger than himself, "treed" two raccoons about his size just the other night. I was reminded of about 15 years ago when I was working on a mountain lion project. We had two puppies that were being trained as lion dogs. They kept on the trail even after the "experienced" dogs had quit. And they treed the lion.



That's me on the right. (A much younger me).

One of the most amazing experiences I've ever had was helping to track mountain lions on the Utah/Idaho border. We caught several over the course of ten days, including two kittens - although we never caught Subcommander Marcos, as you seem to have done.

Amazing how strong these animals are. Their shoulder muscles are iron. I got to stand about 15 feet away from one, me standing on a rise holding the leash to one of the dogs, he breathing hard at the top of a small tree that put us at the same height. After perhaps a minute of staring at each other, he bolted out of the tree, the dog jerked itself free of my hands, and the chase was joined again.

Ah, memories.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2324
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,18:10   

Quote (Wolfhound @ Mar. 01 2009,11:11)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 28 2009,01:14)

That's me on the right. (A much younger me).

Your words say "about 15 years ago" but your mustaches speak of an era long-past.  ;)

You know, you are right. I didn't really think back to when I did that project. It was close to 20 years ago.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,05:49   

Quote (dnmlthr @ Mar. 01 2009,14:17)
Hey! Don't bash the 'tash/don't knock it until you've tried it etc.

I'm afraid I'll have to wait until menopause sets in.  Or else borrow somebody else's upper lip.  The latter would be quicker by about 20 years, methinks.  And probably tickle rather nicely.

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2324
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,10:35   

We used ketamine to knock the cats out while we worked on them. Their eyes don't close, so we tied the bandana over their eyes to prevent retina damage and drying. We were also doing a bit of aversive training as when they came to, they had a sore ass (ketamine shot), a sore ear (ID tattoo), a sore thigh (blood sample), a sore tongue (ketamine antagonist shot), a radio transmitter around their neck, and human stink all over their face.

On warm days we would also have pored water and rubbing alcohol over their belly to cool them down to 102F.

All and all, they were pissed off kitties.


PS: bfish, sounds like fun. We put a radio collar on one of the dogs and followed them that way. We could hang back while the dogs played/worked. Every once in a while a dog would get scratched.

Edited by Dr.GH on Mar. 02 2009,08:40

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2324
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,01:55   

Quote (Wolfhound @ Mar. 02 2009,03:49)
Quote (dnmlthr @ Mar. 01 2009,14:17)
Hey! Don't bash the 'tash/don't knock it until you've tried it etc.

I'm afraid I'll have to wait until menopause sets in.  Or else borrow somebody else's upper lip.  The latter would be quicker by about 20 years, methinks.  And probably tickle rather nicely.

Wolfie, I hope you have all of 20 years before menopause. My wife and I got to share "menopause in a bottle," AKA  tamoxifen following her first mastectomy. Her cancer has returned 5 years following a second mastectomy, and is unfortunately now considered incurable. She takes the estrogen blocker Arimidex, which so far has actually reduced the size and number of active sites in her lymph nodes, and so far there are no brain, lung or liver tumors (the next most likely sites for secondary breast cancers).

We are hopeful that with the anti-science swine out of the White House, medical research will catch-up in time to save her, and millions of other women's lives.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,02:33   

With a daughter suffering Parkinsons Disease, I have some interest in the same subject. I am impressed by the work being done by dedicated scientists to devise workarounds to the hindrances put up for stem cell research. But the effort might have been put to better use.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2324
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,02:47   

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 03 2009,00:33)
With a daughter suffering Parkinsons Disease, I have some interest in the same subject. I am impressed by the work being done by dedicated scientists to devise workarounds to the hindrances put up for stem cell research. But the effort might have been put to better use.

Yes, we need to be very clear that the people who oppose science from their religious stupidity are killing people we love.

The swine who oppose government research and public education because it doesn't serve private industry profit are both stupidly uninformed, and are killing people we love. (This would be all the libertarians, and Ann Rand worshipers).

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,07:01   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 03 2009,02:55)
My wife and I got to share "menopause in a bottle," AKA  tamoxifen following her first mastectomy. Her cancer has returned 5 years following a second mastectomy, and is unfortunately now considered incurable. She takes the estrogen blocker Arimidex, which so far has actually reduced the size and number of active sites in her lymph nodes, and so far there are no brain, lung or liver tumors (the next most likely sites for secondary breast cancers).

Holy shit, Dr. G.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,07:19   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 03 2009,07:55)
Her cancer has returned 5 years following a second mastectomy, and is unfortunately now considered incurable.

I hate to hear that.

Quote
We are hopeful that with the anti-science swine out of the White House, medical research will catch-up in time to save her, and millions of other women's lives.

Indeed. Makes you wonder about the power of ideologically induced blinders and 'won't happen to me'-ism.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,05:17   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 03 2009,02:55)
Wolfie, I hope you have all of 20 years before menopause. My wife and I got to share "menopause in a bottle," AKA  tamoxifen following her first mastectomy. Her cancer has returned 5 years following a second mastectomy, and is unfortunately now considered incurable. She takes the estrogen blocker Arimidex, which so far has actually reduced the size and number of active sites in her lymph nodes, and so far there are no brain, lung or liver tumors (the next most likely sites for secondary breast cancers).

We are hopeful that with the anti-science swine out of the White House, medical research will catch-up in time to save her, and millions of other women's lives.

Holy crap!   I know such platitudes are useless but I am truly sorry for what you and your wife are having to endure.   :(  

I'm of the same mind as you with regard to the changing of the guard.

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,05:32   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 03 2009,08:55)
Wolfie, I hope you have all of 20 years before menopause. My wife and I got to share "menopause in a bottle," AKA  tamoxifen following her first mastectomy. Her cancer has returned 5 years following a second mastectomy, and is unfortunately now considered incurable. She takes the estrogen blocker Arimidex, which so far has actually reduced the size and number of active sites in her lymph nodes, and so far there are no brain, lung or liver tumors (the next most likely sites for secondary breast cancers).

We are hopeful that with the anti-science swine out of the White House, medical research will catch-up in time to save her, and millions of other women's lives.

I'm sorry to hear that, Dr G.

Yet, sadly, it brings to light the inherent problems of fighting against science for ideological and theological reasons. No amount of "Jesus loves you" can replace an able lab with able scientists using all the WORKING tools they can to help those who are in pain.

What would be the state of the world if everyone shared, for exemple, the beliefs of Jehovah witnesses about blood transfusion. The more you think about it, the more crazy it looks, and really gives the best arguments against blind religious fanatism.

Although I would not wish harm to anyone, I wonder what would be your average IDCreationist's reaction if confronted with such an issue.

I kinda remember about Dr Dr writing a desastrous account of his visit to a "healing preacher" with his wife and his son who is afflicted with Down syndrome.

I wish this kind of tragedy would open one's mind, but sadly it rarely does.

Anyway, hold fast, Dr G!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,13:41   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 04 2009,05:32)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 03 2009,08:55)
Wolfie, I hope you have all of 20 years before menopause. My wife and I got to share "menopause in a bottle," AKA  tamoxifen following her first mastectomy. Her cancer has returned 5 years following a second mastectomy, and is unfortunately now considered incurable. She takes the estrogen blocker Arimidex, which so far has actually reduced the size and number of active sites in her lymph nodes, and so far there are no brain, lung or liver tumors (the next most likely sites for secondary breast cancers).

We are hopeful that with the anti-science swine out of the White House, medical research will catch-up in time to save her, and millions of other women's lives.

I'm sorry to hear that, Dr G.

Yet, sadly, it brings to light the inherent problems of fighting against science for ideological and theological reasons. No amount of "Jesus loves you" can replace an able lab with able scientists using all the WORKING tools they can to help those who are in pain.

What would be the state of the world if everyone shared, for exemple, the beliefs of Jehovah witnesses about blood transfusion. The more you think about it, the more crazy it looks, and really gives the best arguments against blind religious fanatism.

Although I would not wish harm to anyone, I wonder what would be your average IDCreationist's reaction if confronted with such an issue.

I kinda remember about Dr Dr writing a desastrous account of his visit to a "healing preacher" with his wife and his son who is afflicted with Down syndrome.

I wish this kind of tragedy would open one's mind, but sadly it rarely does.

Anyway, hold fast, Dr G!

Yep, it's amazing how some change when they are confronted with a problem.  Nancy Reagan is all for fetal stem cell research as her hubby died of a condition she believed stem cell research could have cured.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,13:43   

DR. G.

My thoughts are also with you and your missus.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,13:45   

Dr. G,


Believe me when I say that sucks.  Hope it comes around for you and yours.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2324
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,16:32   

Thanks for the kind words.

My main point was that beating back the forces of ignorance is well and truly a matter of life and death. (how is that for comic book prose?)

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2324
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,16:36   

I haz it back.

Edited by Dr.GH on Mar. 04 2009,16:00

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2324
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,18:04   

an now iz gone


PS: Wolfie, When the time comes, remember they are not "heat flashes," they are "power surges."

Test: Iz it back?

Yeah iz back

Edited by Dr.GH on Mar. 04 2009,20:24

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,18:31   

Dunt wurry Dr. G. You haz experienssed ze quantum!

You can never know if you haz teh edit button until you open teh box.

As for that stupid cat, there are only 3 options:

-dead
-alive
-bloody furious

Pick yours :)

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Bing



Posts: 144
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,19:31   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 04 2009,05:32)
I kinda remember about Dr Dr writing a desastrous account of his visit to a "healing preacher" with his wife and his son who is afflicted with Down syndrome.

Close, but not quite.  The Dr.Dr. went to faith healer Todd Bentley.  The Dembski spawn is autistic.

Quote
We have twin 7-year-old boys, one of whom is autistic (largely nonverbal, still not fully toilet trained, serious developmental delays).


Full article at the Baptist Press

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,21:09   

Story # 202 on my site:

WALK TO ARCHIE
Flipping channels one day, I stopped shortly to see a beautiful little child being prompted to “walk” in a “healing” service.

I prayed, “O God, this little child should not be ‘used’ in this manner.  I wish I had him in my arms.”  
Just then the preacher commanded loudly, “Walk to Archie.”

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,01:56   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,12:56)
Dr. G.H.

If these well-meaning folks want to combine evolution with the Bible, they would have to construct a model that does not "destroy" Adam.  Let me explain.

Please indulge me even hypothetically for a moment, as if I'm reporting my findings of mythology.

According to the Bible, Adam started a chain reaction.  He brought sin, and because of sin he brought death.  The law was added later to define sin and show man what sin was.  But it had no power to help man to do right or forgive sin.  A complex sacrificial worship system was set up to "push back" sin, until the redeemer came.  Christ came and was seen by God as the perfect eternal sacrifice, and He is declared to be the way to God, through faith in his sacrifice.

If death came in the world because it just the ending of biological processes--starting at microorganisms--then the story of Adam is a myth or some kind of symbolic story--then there is no such thing as the original sin, nor the sin nature of man which we inherited from Adam, and therefore the death of Christ is meaningless.  Then Christ and the apostles are either crazy, or liars.

Then there is no basis for the church or Christians, because there is no need for Christ, and Christ is the only person who authorizes the church--the Bible is the only source where the church finds its foundation.

SO to mesh the two is to say the church is just a social club of do-gooders, hypocrites, sexual deviates, and simpletons who need "the opiate for the masses."

Well sonofabitch. Hmmm. Adam can't be a metaphor and Christ's redemption be for something a bit more complicated than that? Have you actually read the new testament? And have you read the Gospel of Thomas? If you haven't read Thomas, you should.

So, in a nutshell, yep. We leaned, collectively, that the bible myth is a myth. Sorry.

The O wasn't there BTW. Bag of Oxygen in one hand, bag of carbon in the the other.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,02:02   

Gary, good luck. Peace.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,08:06   

Why is it that original sin as a doctrine post-dates Jesus by several centuries?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,08:20   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 13 2009,08:06)
Why is it that original sin as a doctrine post-dates Jesus by several centuries?

Something I want to know is why are most of what was written on Jesus appear about 100 years after his supposed life ended?

What I'd also like to know from believers in the KJV of the bible is what made Luther's version the right one of the bible above all doubt?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,09:36   

Quote
Something I want to know is why are most of what was written on Jesus appear about 100 years after his supposed life ended?

That one is easy; it had to wait until nobody was around to spill the beans.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
  452 replies since Feb. 09 2009,10:18 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (16) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]