Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

Quote:

If the age of molten lava is not zero, your method for determining age is non-calibrated and therefore invalid, hence you don't know what you are measuring, from where automatically follows that anything you may infer on the grounds of such 'measurements' is fake and invalid and non-existent in the physical world as evidence ... for the purposes of whatever.

But, H, whether there is valid calibration or not is no help in determining whether it's an intelligently designed or casino universe.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

and by "US" I assume you refer to the legions of "Creationist Scientists"?
Can you give me an example of anything that Creationist science has provided our lives with a technological advance based on your worldview?

Look fm--just because somebody styles themselves Creation Scientists doesn't mean that there is any such organism. You come close to legitimising the term by using it as a battering ram.

It's as if you believe--"attractive, well-read lady, late 30s, with intellectual leanings" is a true description of the actual state of affairs.

Technological advance owes nothing to possible explanations of where the water came from. Only to there being a lot of it and it being useful in steam engines and for generating electricity. Not so when it has a surging do. Although they might be turned to account.

I know that being on the bleachers of technological advance is a wonderful thing to be but that is why everybody, except a few eccentrics who sit under oak trees, naked, and wail at the sky, is in favour of it. Assuming they know what an advance means and are confident it is not an advance along the plank stuck out over the ocean wide.

Just as you pick and choose which sciences to consider a science you pick and choose which technological advances to call technological advances.

Neat--I admit. You can never lose an argument. Maybe you dare not risk it. Hence the conjuring trick. You are actually censoring the very ones who approve of your posts so that they go through life believing that science is limited to those sciences you consider to be a science.

Aren't they wallies eh?

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

My claim was that it is not supernatural for it is possible in the physical world ... and your claim actually is that if you don't understand something it is not possible.

Could you put that another way H?

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

emerging out of nowhere RNA ... in the sterile prehistoric pond).

I like the way you slip in certin "qualifiers"> How do you know a pond is "Sterile"?

When we look at strs with our quantum base spectrophotometers, we see spectra of ACTG and U in a number of galaxies , did you know that?
Seems that some of these galaxies go back to 100' of millions of light years, maybe even a Billion or two. Hardly sterile neighborhood. DO you understand ANYTHING about chemistry?

Quote:

My claim was that it is not supernatural for it is possible in the physical world ... and your claim actually is that if you don't understand something it is not possible.

Ive been ******* around with "quantum based gizmos " for almost 30 years . Im competent at GCMS, EDAX, SHRIMP, ICAP, and the earliest forms of AA . All are based upon quantum physics and chemistry. SO, youre not impressing me at all with your quick steps at denial of scientific evidence.
Maybe you impress your Creationist buds but not here

Quote:

It is not that 'clearly' ... for you don't specify whether it was all of it, part of it or more than the liquid water we have

Try to explain to my aging head, why your complete knowledge of this fact would aid us in our deliberation as to whether evolution is occurring or has occurred?
My feeling is that youre just trying the sciolistic **** again.

Quote:

You have no proof that the water 'continued to be carried in'

How do you read? apparently, comprehension skills aren't high on your list of accomplishments. Try going back and see wht I really said

Quote:

you don't specify whether it was all of it, part of it or more than the liquid water we have today.

And why is this such a criticalpiece of knowledge to pin down?

Quote:

You don't know how could RNA appear out of nothing (in a sterile water pond, on a sterile planet,

Sterile again? the planet is a chemical stew of all sorts of compound and structures, call that sterile?

Im really losing interest with you.I think youll never ever try to read and understand science because its an anathema to your belief system so you are not free to think things out. Maybe you can go stroke gungasnake, you two have somewhat similar mo's, youll believe ANYTHING so long as it aint science. OR youll believe certain aspects of science only so far as they don't encroach onto your religious worldview.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

What about the other planets? Why don't these 'multiple ways' develop water on the other planets ... of the SS, for example.

Well I think your question is a bit dishonest. But there are factors that need to be considered to answer this complex question. For example, the earth's magnetic field might be very important for this process. What I mean by this is if it protects the earth from receiving the full effects of the sun then it might just prevent the water from evaporating and being blown off into space. Which is what we think happened with mars. Mars does have a magnetic field but it is not as intense as earth's.

Herald wrote:

FM does not claim this. He claims that all the water here down on the Earth (amounting to 1,385,999,652,414.- cu.km – not acknowledged by FM) appeared 3.85 Bya. In his understanding of the world this is not a process .. it is an apocalyptic event doing all the job at once ... for he cannot measure how much water has been there by what time.

There is no evidence that it happened as a cataclysmic event. The chances are it was a very slow gradual process.

Herald wrote:

Just a second. High levels of CO2 supposes for carbon to be formed out of something. You have the 0 point of time for the formation of the SS and all of a sudden, out of nowhere 'Enters the Carbon'. How does that happen?

Carbon dioxide is very common in our solar system. Both mars and venus have huge quantities of it. If something were required for carbon dioxide to enter into the equation then what are you suggesting is the cause? You are being vague here.

But on a side note, we know for ancient ice core samples that earth's atmosphere was drastically different than it is today. Bubbles that get trapped into the ice when it freezes actually locks in the ratio of oxygen to carbon dioxide and other gases such as nitrogen. Anyways by analyzing these core samples from multiple locations on the planet it suggests things were much different in earthly earth's life. But we see supporting evidence by ancient fossils.

Herald wrote:

1. Do you believe that this 'right amount of energy' could be a stochastic process?
2. 'small amounts of oxygen and hydrogen in the upper atmosphere to combine which causes water vapor' - can you name any other planets within the range of vision of Hubble exhibiting similar processes?
3. FM claimed that water is formed on the grounds of hydrogen sulfide processing and I asked him why don't he has sulfuric acid in the water vapuors ... like in the atmosphere of Venus.

I really think it comes down to many different factors. It isn't just about the chemistry itself but there are other processes that seem unconnected that play a role in how the events occur.

But if you really want to get down to it. Our recent data collection on how many planets are orbiting other stars in our galaxy seems much higher than expected. Almost every star we check has planets. Granted many of these planets are gas giants but regardless planet formation seems to be rather common, so far as we now know. What does this have to do with anything?

Well statistically speaking there is bound to be a planet somewhere at some point that would develop exactly how the earth developed. Which is why we have the earth. We are the statistic. We know it can happen because we have the evidence right here. No need for a supernatural or wildly crazy idea to explain it. Given enough time I bet every galaxy has an earth like planet that is probably so similar it might even have "humans" because the events unfolded in similar ways. It comes down to probabilities and since there are so many galaxis, so many stars, so many planets, it is bound to re-occur elsewhere.

Herald wrote:

... and why don't you have such RNA synthesis on Mars and on the Moon after having that 'perfect building blocks' there as well?

Temperature is important. The moon is too cold and without an atmosphere it breaks down the RNA from the ultraviolet radiation. Mars is also probably too cold for the process. It needs to be warmer. The pools of water need to evaporate to allow the residue a chance to be irradiated and then pools of water need to re-collect back onto these surfaces. It is an important step. If the planet is too cold you won't get this to happen.

Herald wrote:

I will never start understanding this: How can water ... with unexplained origin, start making RNA in 'lakes and ponds' ... without any information source for encoding that information?

For RNA synthesis it only needs the base chemicals. Once they are in a solution they eventually through natural processes combine to form RNA. It has been tested through given what we think the early earth atmosphere and environment were like and replicated it in the lab and with the base chemicals RNA was successfully made. A completely sterile environment produced RNA through a process of heating, evaporating, condensing and solution. It is well documented.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

But, H, whether there is valid calibration or not is no help in determining whether it's an intelligently designed or casino universe.

It is 'of help' and even how. When somebody is collecting data and misinteprets them in order to match a theory do you think that this is helping to find what actually happened or is impeding the process.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

How do you know a pond is "Sterile"?

This is a reference to the pond in your special theory of the emerging water and life on Earth, appeared out of slippery slope preconditions 3.8 Bya. If the pond is not sterile, the bacteria have always been inhabiting that place (the Earth) and the space around it. How many 'alien bacteria' have you detected so far in the atmosphere of the Earth by that time ... and in open space ... on the rocks of the Oort cloud, for example?

farmerman wrote:

When we look at strs with our quantum base spectrophotometers, we see spectra of ACTG and U in a number of galaxies, did you know that?

What do you try to say here - that you are watching the DNA and the mRNA of the 'galaxies' ... whatever this might mean.

farmerman wrote:

Seems that some of these galaxies go back to 100' of millions of light years, maybe even a Billion or two.

And you don't even know whether they are existing there right now or not ... and what is there at present. This is as if shooting pictures at the shrine of Karnak as a tourist and having Anaksunamun on the picture ... after developing it.

farmerman wrote:

Hardly sterile neighborhood.

Sterilization (in microbiology), is a term referring to any process that eliminates or kills all forms of life from an item or field. The idea in the comment was that if you have a planet that has never had any form of life on it ... how did it happen that all of a sudden ... and out of nowhere enter the Green Algae & Cyanobacteria. FM, you cannot have those two without having the code from somewhere, without having any tangible source for delivering and 'printing' the biological code in the physical world.

farmerman wrote:

DO you understand ANYTHING about chemistry?

No, my understanding is at your level. I don't know anything about heat capacity and enthalpy of fusion of the water for example, but can construct mind-blowing theories about its non-interrupted presence on the Earth ... and mystic appearance out of molten lava ... and delivery by comets ... driving in the opposite direction. I have no idea about how are ACTG & U arranged without biological code source, but this does not impede to develop any theory on the grounds of this.

farmerman wrote:

Im competent at GCMS, EDAX, SHRIMP, ICAP, and the earliest forms of AA . All are based upon quantum physics and chemistry. SO, youre not impressing me at all with your quick steps at denial of scientific evidence.

As far as I can remember from my lack of knowledge in chemistry gas chromatography-mass spectrometry is not used as a quantum communication tool for delivering any messages at any distance ... this method is used to identify the substances in a given test sample.

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
It is not that 'clearly' ... for you don't specify whether it was all of it, part of it or more than the liquid water we have.
Try to explain to my aging head, why your complete knowledge of this fact would aid us in our deliberation as to whether evolution is occurring or has occurred?

Because water is one of the major preconditions for the emergence of life (according to your personal evolutionary beliefs). Because your claim is that the green algae and cyanobacteria evolved somehow from a sterile pond on a strile planet ... without even knowing where did the bio-code come from ... and how did that 'pond' look like by that time. Ah, there is something else. If the saline water is 97 % on the earth, and the fresh water is 3% (less that 1% of which potable) how can your casino theory of evolution explain why the life on earth is based on that less than 1% and not on the other part in abundance. Why when trying to consume saline water 99% of our enzymes and neurotransmitters are going into the Dimension X. Where is the logic and adaptation here. Where is the survival of the fittest, where is the casino math theory applied to evolution ... and the other mumbo jumbo.

farmerman wrote:

My feeling is that youre just trying the sciolistic **** again.

Your feeling is very personal perception of the world, and I am not 'ad hominem' at your level to comment such things.

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
You have no proof that the water 'continued to be carried in'
How do you read? apparently

If the rocks of the Oort cloud are driving outwards ... in the last few billion years I really don't understand what do you have in mind by that 'apparently'

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

When somebody is collecting data and misinteprets them in order to match a theory do you think that this is helping to find what actually happened or is impeding the process.

Neither. It's irrelevant. It's mind play-dough. What actually happened is unknowable.

The consequences of ID and CU are interesting as is also the why, the how and the whence of the choice for society and for individuals.

Science is the aggregate of instances from which the idea of science is deduced by every new scientist and enlarged. Art is the same.

The two are irreconcilable and the dispute here irresolvable. Pride has become involved.

0 Replies

@Herald,

so by
Sterile" you mean "devoid of life at that time"? Again, you know this how?. At 3.8 Billion years ago, in several places on the planet , we see the evidence of single cell life. Its within SEDIMENTARY DEPOSITS. These deposits are laid down in water. Why is it so hard of ryou to understand this fact?

From other galaxies,We can see the spectra of amino acids, nucleotides, and some proteins and lots pf spectral information on
CO2,CH3,NH3,NH3,H2O wtc etc. WHile ths doesn't conclude that life is out there, it certainly does support the hypothesis.

Quote:

And you don't even know whether they are existing there right now or not

and this is important to your thesis because?

Quote:

how did it happen that all of a sudden ... and out of nowhere enter the Green Algae & Cyanobacteria. FM, you cannot have those two without having the code from somewhere,

. Cyanobacter evolved a few BILLION years after the initial Protista and simple cell organisms. Don't yu think that, with the history of the EVIDENCE of the development of life on the planet that life's origins were simple, homely origins due to naturl processes without some big"Plan?". Otherwise, the very appearance of life seems so haphazard from the fossil record, from a period of almost 2 Billion years in which the first living things appeared as only dmudgy deposits of C12, to the next "new ideas" of protists, then almost a Billion years later we see. stromatolites and cyanobacter , followed by multi cell organisms, then discoid shape life and then life forms with bilateral symmetry and then the appearance of animals with shells and simple notochords. Then, when the "basic patterns" of life are worked out (by apparent trial and error). The evolution process kicks into a higher gear and entire new phyla and classes of animals appear from more humble ancestors (At least that's apparent to me).

If you believe in an "intelligence" , why does the evidence NOT support and intelligent style of having life appear? The :Intelligence" seems anything but. Its a fumbling , totally non linear, time wasting, arbitrary intelligence who lets its handworks get wiped out occasionally by external forces and lets major examples of its talent just disappear forever.

Quote:

gas chromatography-mass spectrometry is not used as a quantum communication tool

GCMS and most machinery use the basic understandings of quantum physics and chemistry. Quantum communication would only b a valid assumption if there were data and evidence to support your assertions. You haven't been to any planets to observe the life that may be there.
I envision life as universal but of highly variable form within limits of chemical building directives (like symmetric isomers resulting in extended symmetry of life), protein based structure because proteins and amino acids CAN be constructed in the petri dish of a "biologically sterile" environment (just as long as building block elements are present and we KNOW that these are all over the Universe)

Quote:

I don't know anything about heat capacity and enthalpy of fusion of the water for example,

.
Why do you even bother?. Thermo isn't a big deal in life chemistry origins because the reactions seem to be surface chemistry (think zeta potentials and adsorption/desorption kinetics, not heats of "fusion"

Quote:

but(I) can construct mind-blowing theories about its non-interrupted presence on the Earth

I don't need to "construct" theories about the presence of water on earth. When water first appeared on the planet (Ill stick with the 0.7 BY after the earth formed) The evidence is continuously supported of a planet wide mass of water that built sedimentary deposits through time. These deposits are quite easily found and studied from outcrops and can be dated by several standard methods. No mystery or " hypothetically qualified made up conditions " (like much of your style)

Quote:

without even knowing where did the bio-code come from ... and how did that 'pond' look like by that time. Ah, there is something else. If the saline water is 97 % on the earth, and the fresh water is 3% (less that 1% of which potable) how can your casino theory of evolution explain why the life on earth is based on that less than 1% and not on the other part in abundance

Are you so obtuse as to think that cells can only develop in fresh water? Isnt it so that most all life contains cell and bodily fluids that parallel sea water?
Life ADAPTS to various environments, it isn't controlled by them. Wherever the environment trumps adaptability, the organism usually goes extinct. Of that we have plenty of evidence. Sounds like a process of natural selection to me.

Tell me, how old is the earth, in your estimation, and why do you accept that value?

3 Replies

@farmerman,

I thought you said that you were getting tired of this fm.

It looks like you don't even know your own mind.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

You're not actually in a discussion of origins fm. You're just showing off. Or trying to.

You are negotiating the foggy ruins of time like you negotiate a fog in the bay. With the necessary help of the science and technology which preceded you which, as you must know, is an invention of our ID and impossible to think about as a product of blind chance.

How do you explain 2 million years of human life not producing our science and it suddenly arriving in a culture based upon Christian thinking and not anywhere else? Blind chance obviously fails the test.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

so by "Sterile" you mean "devoid of life at that time"? Again, you know this how?

Just a second, FM. You assume that there has been some form of life before the emergence of life on the Earth ... and what exactly you are explaining with that evolutionary theory then?

farmerman wrote:

At 3.8 Billion years ago, in several places on the planet , we see the evidence of single cell life. Its within SEDIMENTARY DEPOSITS. These deposits are laid down in water. Why is it so hard of ryou to understand this fact?

1. Because without reliably calibrated method that can measure the zero at the time when the lava has been molten, you have no idea of what you are measuring as age and time.
2. 'Sedimentary deposits paid down in water' may have more than one plausible explanation ... and the probability for the first one to be the right one is very low.
3. I can understand any facts (yet they have to be verified and validated), but I cannot understand how can you be so sure that this is the only explanation that may exist.

farmerman wrote:

From other galaxies,We can see the spectra of amino acids, nucleotides, and some proteins and lots pf spectral information on
CO2,CH3,NH3,NH3,H2O wtc etc. WHile ths doesn't conclude that life is out there, it certainly does support the hypothesis.

So, by this you confirm that information about bio-code can be transferred from one place into another through common observations, hence the delivery of bio-code from one place of the universe into another is not entirely to be excluded ... and by doing this you actually confirm the possibility for quantum communication of the bio-code here down to the Earth.

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
And you don't even know whether they are existing there right now or not ...
and this is important to your thesis because?

... you are missing the information about that places at present, you have missed the information of the SS in the past, etc.
Suppose you have 100 frames in a video and take a strip (of 1/100) from each frame (it doesn't matter whether horizontally or vertically). The question is: can you recover the narration of the video on the grounds of that single frame that you have?

farmerman wrote:

Don't yu think that, with the history of the EVIDENCE of the development of life on the planet that life's origins were simple, homely origins due to naturl processes without some big"Plan?".

1. First of all it is called 'master plan' (we are talking about the metaphor you are trying to use here).
2. You don't have such 'history of the EVIDENCE of the development of life'. You have facts and timing ... and nothing else ... as 'evidence'.
3. Why don't you tell us s.th. more about these 'naturl processes'. How can a natural process create a bio-code for example ... and how is this 'natural process' called?

farmerman wrote:

Otherwise, the very appearance of life seems so haphazard from the fossil record, from a period of almost 2 Billion years

FM, have you ever seen a plot of a hazard function ... and its natural distribution 'bell' in particular. If the appearance of life on the Earth is a hazard function it should have normal distribution throughout the SS ... at least.
Well, you may not be able to find cats and dogs on the ice rocks of the Oort cloud, but you should observe there at least some 'spectra of amino acids, nucleotides, and some proteins and lots pf spectral information on CO2, CH3, NH3, NH3, H2O wtc etc.'

farmerman wrote:

Then, when the "basic patterns" of life are worked out (by apparent trial and error) ...

O.K., enough is enough. Take a brand new virgin laptop (without any OS on it) and as you obviously have absolute zero knowledge in software engineering, try to make and install on it a brand new OS ... by trial and error.
Tip: You may use also the trial and error peaks of the electric grid, if you wish.

farmerman wrote:

don't need to "construct" theories about the presence of water on earth.

You don't really know whether it was 'presence' or 'process of production of H2O' or 'process of accumulation' or s.th. else. You are just making science fiction for amusement of the population on the net.

farmerman wrote:

The evidence is continuously supported of a planet wide mass of water that built sedimentary deposits through time. These deposits are quite easily found and studied from outcrops and can be dated by several standard methods. No mystery ...

There is 'mystery' however: how did all that huge amount of water 1,385,999,652,414.- cu.km (if we assume that by 'planet wide' you mean almost the same amount of water the Earth has today) appear out of nowhere and out of nothing within such a short period of time - several million years of s.th.

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
without even knowing where did the bio-code come from ... and how did that 'pond' look like by that time. Ah, there is something else. If the saline water is 97 % on the earth, and the fresh water is 3% (less that 1% of which potable) how can your casino theory of evolution explain why the life on earth is based on that less than 1% and not on the other part in abundance
Are you so obtuse as to think that cells can only develop in fresh water?

We have no proper qualification to discuss this issue on the net, but believe me the lack of evidence for man-amphibian is as I say it. You have no man-amphibian evolved throughout that 3.85 Bys, able to consume sea water ... without going into the dimension X.
No cats have become any dogs during that period of time - 3.85 Bys.
Species don't mismatch as your favourite theory of evolution claims ... and no transitional inter-species forms have ever been observed ... neither in the past, nor at present ... and the water paradox is one of the major contradictions of evolution.
Do you know what a contradiction is? It is like driving a sports car with pulled-up handbreak. Contradiction is not some nuts on the cherry tree that can be skipped and ignored ... to continue with the cherry-picking. A contradiction is s.th. that makes an operation, a theory or a process invalid. In software slang this is called 'game over'.
FM, your theory about the 'appearance' of the water on the Earth is 'game over', a man - of no actual value and not valid any more ... to me at least.

3 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Do you know what a contradiction is? It is like driving a sports car with pulled-up handbreak.

Or like driving the science car in the squeamish gear. Or the uxorious car in rank misogyny mode.

How about driving a Grand Prix car with the brakes hard on?

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Just a second, FM. You assume that there has been some form of life before the emergence of life on the Earth

Where have I sid that? Youre just plying lie after lie. I was trying to get you to define "serile" You were confusing "sterile" with meaning "free of dissolved chemicals and organic molecules.
We were talking about the origin of life so "Without life" would certainly have been a pre condition.

Quote:

1. Because without reliably calibrated method that can measure the zero at the time when the lava has been molten, you have no idea of what you are measuring as age and time.

Here we go again. As far as I know, life doesn't pop up in lava. We can date 4.8 By lavas by understanding that the hlf lives of many f the isotopes we use are in the 14 to 48 to 105 BILLION YEARs range. Uranium is relatively short compared to Sm/Nd

Quote:

'Sedimentary deposits (l)aid down in water' may have more than one plausible explanation ... and the probability for the first one to be the right one is very low.

Around here, whenever anyone has an hypothesis, its up to them to defend it. Im listening, you may proceed giving me some other "plausible explanations

a. Strata grade "finely: to the top of the bed s an are then overlain by sediments of the next storm or pulse sequence. This is a unique feature of water borne sediments. Cant be explained any other way.

b.the sedimentary lyers follow clearly defined channel bed, as if these were debauching to an even lrger body of water.

Quote:

So, by this you confirm that information about bio-code can be transferred from one place into another through common observations

The neat thing about much of the fossil record evidence was that it layed there for almost 50 years before other pieces came into being to nail it down. The view of amino acids nd nucleotides in galactic spectra is but a single piece of evidence. I drew NO conclusions . Youre just jumpy because evidence has a habit of piling up. I would imagine the next Mars Rovers would be looking for evidence of life forms in the ancient water courses.

Quote:

You don't have such 'history of the EVIDENCE of the development of life'. You have facts and timing

Youll have to explain the difference." I have a fact that I want to produce as evidence". Some other facts-- We also have the actual remnants of the life. We also have the "facts" of the nature of the water borne sediments including temps, and gases. ALL this and we have the pretty good dates of when all this happened.

Quote:

O.K., enough is enough. Take a brand new virgin laptop (without any OS on it) and as you obviously have absolute zero knowledge in software engineering, try to make and install on it a brand new OS

Good attempt at obfuscation. Since you apparently have no experience in evolutionary biology you seem to be attacking the concept that life "delivers its goods AGAINST entropy' . Its known in the chemistry world that certain compound (naturally formed) store and transmit energy in the forms of heat, electricity, magnetism, or radioactivity. Is this a Master Plan? or simple chemistry and physics. Besides all that, the EVIDENCE is that life progressed from the most simple to more complex forms overall. There are examples of life forms retrograding to simpler forms (like saprophytes and parasites) but even these are special adaptations from free living forms

Quote:

Species don't mismatch as your favourite theory of evolution claims

Examples from the fossil record ABOUND with just such examples. I hve a feeling you are gungasnakes son learning the line of bullshit from Daddy.

Quote:

and no transitional inter-species forms have ever been observed ... neither in the past, nor at present

That's one big whopping lie contrived by the panicky Creationists. The inter species transitional forms are all over the place and were finding new ones monthly. If you just choose to ignore them that's ok and Id let your worldview pass. HOWEVER, when you try to argue with false claims and total bullshit wanderings around the discussion bord, Ill not.

If you wih to remain ignorant FINE, just dont try to mask your ignorance with bullshit claims of "Science". That's fraud.

Quote:

Do you know what a contradiction is? It is like driving a sports car with pulled-up handbreak. Contradiction is not some nuts on the cherry tree that can be skipped and ignored ... to continue with the cherry-picking. A contradiction is s.th. that makes an operation, a theory or a process invalid. In software slang this is called 'game over'

Reminds me of what many senators were saying about the Vietnam War. "Just declare ourselves the winner and bug out"
That's what youre trying to do but youre doing your bugging out from a basis of pure ignorance of how the biological world and evolutionary evidence even works.
As I said before, believe what you will, but keep it to yourself, youre playing in my court and you've failed to answer the simplest obvious questions on your worldview, MOST RECENTLY "Name me one thing that your Creationist worldview has discovered about the beginnings of life or has made scientific advance.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

You were confusing "sterile" with meaning "free of dissolved chemicals and organic molecules.

I am not confusing anything. Sterile means without any organic code, whatsoever within the range of the present day bioshpere of the Earth.

farmerman wrote:

We can date 4.8 By lavas

Where have you dated back that lavas, if the SS is 4.6 Bys old? If this is not a pseudoscientific fraud, how it is called?

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
You don't have such 'history of the EVIDENCE of the development of life'. You have facts and timing
Youll have to explain the difference."

Enormous. Evidence is s.th. confirming some theory and facts that are labeled with some inconsistent and irrelevant theory just to be stuck somewhere remain nothing but irrelevant facts.

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
O.K., enough is enough. Take a brand new virgin laptop (without any OS on it) and as you obviously have absolute zero knowledge in software engineering, try to make and install on it a brand new OS
... you seem to be attacking the concept that life "delivers its goods AGAINST entropy'.

So you claim that the ACGT & U are programmed by the thermodynamics of the planet. WFM.

farmerman wrote:

Is this a Master Plan? or simple chemistry and physics.

Nothing with ACGT & U is 'simple chemistry' nor 'simple physics'. In our region this is called biology ... and obviously it is much more than that..

farmerman wrote:

Besides all that, the EVIDENCE is that life progressed from the most simple to more complex forms overall.

All that you can say is 'progressed' - you don't know whether it progressed by itself ... or by some impact from outside ... not to say that you don't have even a definition for 'progress' here.

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Species don't mismatch as your favourite theory of evolution claims
Examples from the fossil record ABOUND with just such examples.

Take for example the mutt dogs. Do you see any of them having 'evolved' into a wolf or s.th. With the time ... as a result of the street evolution and street fighting natural selection. The mini-evolution we are observing is within the species and you cannot make a brand new 'improved' species as you claim to have evidenced ... species with additional genetic material. You will need the additional genetic code for this FM ... and you have no idea where it is coming from.

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
and no transitional inter-species forms have ever been observed ... neither in the past, nor at present
That's one big whopping lie contrived by the panicky Creationists. The inter species transitional forms are all over the place and were finding new ones monthly.

And from where and how do they get the additional genetic material to become brand new species. Do you know that the 'copyrighted' hybrid wheat that some people are selling to you every year cannot germinate on the next year? ... and so are some hybrid flowers, etc.? Do you know why is that - because the genetic code is neither simple chemistry, nor simple physics, not even only biology. It is something more than that.

farmerman wrote:

That's what youre trying to do but youre doing your bugging out from a basis of pure ignorance of how the biological world and evolutionary evidence even works.

... and how are they working, FM, if it is not a secret. How can a bacteria appear into a pure chemical and physical environment of whatever. Why don't you explain this to us: how it works?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

1. Because without reliably calibrated method that can measure the zero at the time when the lava has been molten, you have no idea of what you are measuring as age and time...

You are ignoring cross disciplinary convergence within science and addressing all knowledge in isolation. This isn't a realistic approach to understanding the world given that nothing within the natural world exists in isolation.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Lets not expect any convergences with reality by this fella. After all, his is a world whose secrets are revealed by some writer sitting in a tent

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

Sterile means without any organic code

so you consider amino acids, nucleotides, sugars, phsopholipids and long chain aliphatics as "Sterile" eh? HMMM, remind me to nominate you to the Ignoble Prizes Committee

Quote:

Where have you dated back that lavas

Why not include the entire quote in that we can date igneous rocks and sed rocks lying beneath other igneous rocks by several isotopic methods

Quote:

Enormous. Evidence is s.th. confirming some theory and facts that are labeled with some inconsistent and irrelevant theory just to be stuck somewhere remain nothing but irrelevant facts.

So according to you evidence has no need for facts? HELLO IGNOBLE COMMITTEE< STOP THE AWARDS NOMINATIONS!!

Quote:

So you claim that the ACGT & U are programmed by the thermodynamics of the planet.

Id say that you are just nuts for saying that.

Quote:

All that you can say is 'progressed' - you don't know whether it progressed by itself ... or by some impact from outside ... not to say that you don't have even a definition for 'progress' here.

I guess you are technically right on this point. However, facts and data support that "progress" was periodically terminated and life almost ceased , The only life forms that mde it through seemed to be demonstrating convergent evolution. I have stronger evidence that supports a conclusion that life just muddled on by itself , just adapting away and no evidence of ANY outside influence.
Please explain how this outside influence manifested itself.

Quote:

The mini-evolution we are observing is within the species and you cannot make a brand new 'improved' species as you claim to have evidenced ... species with additional genetic material. You will need the additional genetic code for this FM ... and you have no idea where it is coming from.

Suppose several species have slipped into new genera? is that significant to your evolution denial position?. As far as new genes read Fairbridge (one of the books I recommended earlier in this thread) He was a "born again Christian that, upon becoming a geneticist became fascinated by the possibilities in human evolution.Hes discovered the genic complements of all orts within humans and among humans , Hominids and Pongids. Genetic testing doesn't lie (or does it according to you?)

If you watch, you will begin agreeing with gunga who wants Neanderthals to be classed as a "Terrible Ape".

Quote:

And from where and how do they get the additional genetic material to become brand new species

New genes arise in several manners. The most common is by doubling an existing gene and inserting it in tndem nxt to the parental gene. Sometimes this is lethal and other times this gene takes on entirely new functions and the prent gene is still preserved in the structure and is referred to as an orthologous gene. We trace the phylogeny of genes through these orthologous pirs. The derived gene , we call paralogous
Most evolutionary changes are traced through the paralogous genic complement. Sometimes, like in the human/chimpanzee makeup of chromosome 1and 2 this doubling (or clipping) affects the whole chromosome.
Protists and many lower organisms don't have sexual congress but can exchange whole packets of genes by lateral transfer. Many organism pathogens have the ability to provide new genes to a highe organism by this lateral transfer mechanism also.

New genes-No problem. Theres a whole bunch of ways to accomplish it,, and, IF YOURE INTERESTED we have a few PRACTICING geneticists on the board who can give you much more info into this gap of your science education. Maybe I can stimulate their interests. Im just a poor geologist whose got too much time
hanging around paleontologists and evolutionary biologists.

Quote:

How can a bacteria appear into a pure chemical and physical environment of whatever.

You keep defaulting onto bacteria. You know that, of the microroganismic life (protists and ancient eukaryotes), bacteria are as advanced as we are from flatworms.
The term cyanobacter doesn't really mean "bacteria" it just means blue green microscopic life.
Since its not my principle bag of tricks, I just read my EVOLUTION mag and NATURE and I get to see what new developments are showing up at reproducing the possibility of life in a lb.

So as I find out about the genesis of life Ill add it to the mounds of data regarding EVOLUTION , maybe the two disciplines will be producing a Unified Theory some day. Im not gonna hold my breath. Also, Im not going to stop research because some Creationist Group is trying to stop the advances in science because of some fear for loss of control over their dwindling flocks.

AS Bill Gates said,
"Religious belief , is uneconomical from a time management standpoint. I know I have much better things I could be doing on a Sunday"

Quote:

We can date 4.8 By lavas by understanding that the hlf lives of many f the isotopes we use are in the 14 to 48 to 105 BILLION YEARs range. Uranium is relatively short compared to Sm/Nd

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Lets not expect any convergences with reality by this fella. After all, his is a world whose secrets are revealed by some writer sitting in a tent

FM, why don't you simply confess that you cannot assemble a brand new OS on a brand new laptop - and by rough estimates this is less than 1% of the complexity of the biocode you are talking about with such a great ease.
You cannot explain even whether your own intelligence is your own or some quantum Wi-Fi from somewhere on the other side of the universe ... how it appears out of nothing at birth and goes into nothingness after the death ... and how can it be encoded a priori into 46 'pure chemical and pure physical structures'.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I just read my EVOLUTION mag and NATURE and I get to see what new developments are showing up at reproducing the possibility of life in a lb.

As there is zero possibility that activity is a waste of precious time.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know