Customer Discussions > Science forum

Abiogenesis be Manned- There is no evidence for life having started naturally on Earth.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 6426-6450 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 12:40:32 PM PDT
Doctor says:
ID was only debunked by deniers in their own minds.

Dover and judge jones

John Jones recalls that he "was taken to school

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/10/judge-jones-i-was-taken-to-school.html

Judge Jones loses

http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/judge-jones-loses-in-florida-and-louisiana/

At one point last week, during the defense's cross-examination of a witness, the lawyer's microphone started to buzz loudly.

"It's a trick we do to limit cross-examination," quipped Jones.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 12:41:56 PM PDT
Doctor says:
What definitions?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 12:52:29 PM PDT
Doctor says:
PG>I have never heard of a class on evolution below the college level and they do not go into origins.

Didn't Miller write high school biology textbooks that promote evolution?

Isn't that why he was picked for Dover?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 12:59:58 PM PDT
Doctor says:
Wilder-Smith wrote several books on wht the laws of physics and chemestry forbids the evolution of life from non-life.

http://www.wildersmith.org/books.htm

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 1:24:43 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
Of design and of irreducible complexity for a start.

Although a genuine definition of the "theory of intelligent design" would not hurt.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 1:27:41 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
You brought up Dover, not me. I was referring to the creationist texts that became "ID" texts with only a change in words. I was also referring to the lawyer who dreamed up the idea. I was even referring to the scientists who where kind enough to respond to ID's claims. Dover is simply the venue where all of this came out in one place. But please, how should the judge have ruled, given the accusation and evidence presented.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 1:29:54 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
"Didn't Miller write high school biology textbooks that promote evolution?"

No. Miller wrote a high school biology textbook. Since evolution is an integral part of modern biology it was included in the text are was often referenced. He did not "promote" evolution. Evolution is the only scientific theory on the subject.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 1:32:37 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 21, 2012 1:35:34 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
Who cares. The vast majority of the field disagree. And they have done experiments that show that various steps are possible. They have yet to prove that any step is impossible. Wilder-Smith's rantings do not change this fact.

Quote: "Kenneth Christiansen, Professor of Biology at Grinnell College, reviewed the book stating "the most fundamental flaw of the book is an apparent confusion or ignorance (it is hard to tell) concerning our present understanding of the evolutionary process."[13] He further noted that Wilder-Smith's work disregarded basic literature in the field discussed.[13]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._E._Wilder-Smith

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 2:22:15 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 21, 2012 2:23:07 PM PDT
Doctor wrote:
"Wilder-Smith wrote several books on wht the laws of physics and chemestry forbids the evolution of life from non-life."
=========================
One needs no book to realize the obvious. The problem with indulging into the causation of origin of life is the futility of such pursuit unless one knows, or could conclude, an understanding of such causation.

That does not mean that we should not keep asking the question and seeking the solution on the causation of life on earth. Like the The Wizard of Oz, there will be plenty of joy in the pursuit of the mystery, not in the end point. The man who was pulling the strings knew well how to bring joy to the curious minds, keeping the mystery alive.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 2:53:49 PM PDT
RR says:
"Must be junk, we evolved by mistake."

Even where we accept the idea of intelligence as a mechanism, that mechanism has a long history of producing junk. Humans produce junk which collects over time. Most of what any ancient city stands on is junk, rubble. Go to Jerusalem and find out for yourself.

Even someone as benighted as a creationist should understand the idea of creative destruction. DNA evolves through creative destruction, what isn't useful is destroyed and replaced with what is useful, or the system dies, be it a species or a city. Sometimes the rubble is removed, sometimes it isn't.

The idea that DNA is like a fresh set of blueprints is like pretending that the world's great cities have no history.

"45% known, parasitic junk DNA"s
Probably higher for the amoeba dubia. You've still failed abjectly to show that 100% of all DNA is useful. You just nibble at the edges. You've got nothing but an offended sensibility.

More evidence that creationists are dishonest.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 3:00:31 PM PDT
RR says:
Doctor,
"complex specified information required to build the Cambrian animals"

How specifically did it happen? Step 1, Step 2. Evidence please. Show specifically:
1. Evidence of an extraterrestrial designer was on earth (what detritus did he leave?
2. What tools did he use? What was the manufacturing process
3. Where did he do it? Where's the factory, or did he just do it next to a camp fire?

Truth, IC is more evidence of dishonesty, the only reason you use the Cambrian is due to the lack of evidence. Creationists only make claims about soft tissues, because they know there is no evidence to show that they are lying.

Sternberg's literature didn't even attempt to show a designer, much less what he did. It just made stupid claims about how things are complex, ergo goddidit. That's why he lost his job.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 3:01:52 PM PDT
RR says:
Doctor,
"Is that why they teach "origins" in evolution classes?"

Yes, because there is no evidence of any magical or non-magical beings ever being on the planet making life.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 3:05:27 PM PDT
RR says:
Doctor,
"Isn't the assumption that "chance" and "necessity" ( laws of nature) got together and produced life from non-life?"

Doesn't matter. What matters is that if you want to claim that the life creating mechanisms were intelligent, then YOU have a burden of proof.

This is the dishonesty of creationism. The alternative to "I don't know" is not "goddidit". That is just an argument from ignorance, a burden of proof fallacy.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 3:11:44 PM PDT
RR says:
Doctor,
"http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/judge-jones-loses-in-florida-and-louisiana/"

Apparently you don't know the difference between legislative branch and judicial branch. Legislatures are forever enacting laws that use police powers to enforce their religious preferences on others. And each time they do, the judicial branch throws their laws out.

The truth is that Judge Jones ruling has not been overturned by any higher court. No one appealed it. Why, because they know they'd lose.

You creationists are free to run another test case for creationism. Hopefully, you do it without lying again or produce at least a scintilla of evidence that extraterrestrial intelligence is an evolutionary mechanism. So far, you and the pseudo-scientists at the Discovery Institute have failed abjectly to do that.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 3:28:06 PM PDT
IL: "I suspect you're right, noman. I also suspect that any face-to-face friends he might have would not long tolerate his childishness while he can get away with it here. It's the main reason I no longer engage him. It is utterly pointless."

AD HOCKEY! Come on now.
Admit it! You're just jealous...

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 3:46:30 PM PDT
PG: "That is like calling the president of the united states chicken for not debating you personally."

Notto, really!

It's more like calling someone sheepish for not even trying, not to mention fastidious/squeamish. Check the thread Why Darwinists Become More Illiterate Over Thyme by Brent M. for more tails (sic)about that one. It has nothing to do with KFC (Kentucky fried chicken), or any of its cheap fish and chip competitors. That's ultranationalist - not naturalist/veggie, by the whey.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 3:55:37 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 21, 2012 4:11:31 PM PDT
CMJ: "You asked about Luskin's methods, not any of your own. " I pointed out that Luskin had no methodology. You then turned this back into another rant about how I didn't understand my own methodology. And the sun rose and set today -- what else is new?"

I asked about Luskin's methods. I did not assert that he had used statistics. You asked me to confirm where he had (supply details for a statement I had never said), implying in squawk that I asserted that. That's why I asked you to produce the statement that I had said that. This was to give you an opportunity to demonstrate that you were genuine and being truthful in what you directly implied I said, having misunderstood me. But it was to no avail; so I can only assume it was libel thus. THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHERE EVOLUTIONIST'S BLUDGEONING RHETORIC GETS DIRECTLY IN THE WAY OF SCIENCE. THEY WOULD RATHER MALIGN AT THE SLIGHTEST OPPORTUNITY THAN DISCUSS SCIENCE, AND THEY SWITCH TO IT UNANNOUNCED, WITHOUT CAVEAT - TO DECEIVE IN DIALOG, I THINK. They cannot win following any science or debate standards.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 4:04:20 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 21, 2012 4:12:09 PM PDT
Nat: "Craig accepts evolution as the truth. There is no reason to debate him. He is a professor. He lives in England. He rarely debates because he rarely has the time to. Craig makes his living by debating philosophy. Dawkins makes his living teaching and authoring. The only time he gives lectures/speeches/appearances in the US is only because of book promoting and they are few and far between."

Demonstrate personal knowledge about those involved, or else give documented evidence. Otherwise, you're just projecting/superimposing your own typical responses onto the question with only their topical interests used as a basis. EVOLUTION - FLATSUM SCIENCE!!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 4:07:50 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 21, 2012 4:51:25 PM PDT
DF (just taken off ignore): "The above makes Behe an ignorant or a liar.
"
Unrigorous. Non sequitur. You're using the oldest con in the debate book. It is the prevaling evolutionist criticism levelled against Meyer's ID evidence book, Signature in the Cell!!!

This is not about science, but publication dates. What you're doing is calling lack of information most likely due to a significant time lag in separation of publication dates (not even trying to rule the most likely cause out) a lie. That's done brashly and uncritically, it appears.

The second oldest trick in the book is like it: merely assuming a writer should know everything. If not, it's presumed that it only could be a lie. IF THAT IS TRUE, WHY DOESN'T PROF. JANIS KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT HER OWN PUBLISHED METHODS TO DEFEND HER PAPER'S RESULTS? Want to call her a liar quickly and superficially, too?

TIME LAG AND INADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE (BEING LESS THAN COMPLELELY INFORMED AT DATE OF PUBLICATION - AND THAT BEING DISCOVERED LATER) ARE ONLY LIES TO EVOLUTIONISTS, *BUT* ONLY IF THE ACCUSED IS NOT AN EVOLUTION PROPONENT. Evolution is personally subjective science!!!

If you are indeed sincere (WHICH IS THE GREATEST PROBLEM WITH EVOLUTION SCIENCE/SPECULATION NOWADAYS), prove such by showing no or very little separation in publication dates between the two views and necessity to know. SCIENCE SHOWS UPDATES. EVOLUTIONIST SPECULATION MOST OFTEN DOES NOT.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 4:12:26 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
Don't you find 8 am a little early for these rants? At least get some breakfast first.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 4:13:43 PM PDT
RR says:
Kepler,
" THEY WOULD RATHER MALIGN AT THE SLIGHTEST OPPORTUNITY THAN DISCUSS SCIENCE,"

Said by the guy who claims that predation has no impact on species and does it in CAPITALS, ROLFMAO

More evidence that creationists are all dishonest.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 4:16:56 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 21, 2012 4:32:26 PM PDT
PG: "Don't you find 8 am a little early for these rants? At least get some breakfast first."

I'm eating surreal (sic) right now. It lists "for con-sumption" right on the box.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 4:32:50 PM PDT
"We won't test this animal organic material because we KNOW it must be over 50 million years old."

You can try testing organic material with carbon dating, but if it's over 50 thousand years old you're going to get no results, because there will be no carbon 14 left. You really don't understand this, do you?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 4:35:29 PM PDT
Doctor says:
"What did Luskin do that makes it personal? "

Read the posts. I was referring to RK's claim that Luskin's methology was better than mine, or some similar nonsense, when Luskin does not analyse data (which, BTW, I have been doing all day).

Posted on Jul 21, 2012 6:49:53 PM PDT
Hey, look what I found from the Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings.

http://www.baylorhealth.edu/Documents/BUMC%20Proceedings/2012%20Vol%2025/No.%202/25_i2_Dimijian_bapr.pdf

I found it at this site

http://afarensis99.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/a-response-to-joseph-kuhns-dissecting-darwinism/
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  112
Total posts:  6982
Initial post:  Jan 30, 2012
Latest post:  May 13, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions