Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.atheism > #2070623 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Moses <moses@sinai.55> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-05 20:14 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-03-07 18:30 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 53 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.55> - 2016-03-05 20:14 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 20:18 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2016-03-05 20:36 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 20:49 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 19:52 -0700
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.6y> - 2016-03-05 22:48 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 22:44 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-05 23:48 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 23:38 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-06 02:51 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 02:03 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-06 03:25 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 09:45 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.54> - 2016-03-06 11:58 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:31 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-07 21:34 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 01:14 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 03:13 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 04:35 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 06:10 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 06:48 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 07:42 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 10:41 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 10:30 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 10:29 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-09 01:12 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 19:18 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 18:00 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-05 23:44 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <forget@it.nw> - 2016-03-06 12:01 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-06 07:29 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-06 19:20 +0000
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 13:56 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2016-03-06 14:27 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:35 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2016-03-06 14:33 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:47 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-07 20:23 +0000
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-06 20:53 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:07 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-07 22:17 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 01:20 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-07 23:37 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-08 23:15 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 16:56 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 17:22 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 18:25 -0700
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-06 05:07 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-06 17:08 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 11:00 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 09:50 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-06 23:01 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-07 18:30 -0500
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | Moses <moses@sinai.55> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 20:14 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You |
| Message-ID | <56DB8mghmghmmg467.67E@mhmhmhjmhmh.com> |
Malte Runz wrote: > > Moses wrote: > > >> >> >> >> This is exactly what you would expect to see after a massive worldwide flood. > >> > > >> >> >> >> Did it happen? Oh yes! > >> > > >> >> >> > according to the Bereshith account, the flood was NOT a "natural > >> >> >> > disaster" and the only myth which should be debunked is the myth that > >> >> >> > the Bereshith account must be reconciled with a naturalistic mechanism. > >> >> >> > according to the Bereshith account God poured out waters and assuaged > >> >> >> > them, and this is not some natural catastophe upon which "God" merely > >> >> >> > sat and watched a thing that would have happened anyway without "God's" > >> >> >> > implementation. > >> > > >> >> It [flood] was a physical impossibility. > >> > > >> >this speaks of an interference from some outside agency, and not a physical phenomenon that would have > >> >happened anyway if the outside agency had not taken action. calling it a "physical impossibilty" misses > >> >that point. Clearly, a God who can create physical universes from scratch can easily cover the surface > >> >of the earth with water. ... > > > >> And make it go away again. And erase all the evidence thereof. Make it > >> look like it never happened. That's one helluva God. > > > > > >i never said all evidence was erased ... > No, that was me. It's the only thing that could have happened, if one > insists that the Biblical Flood had taken place 4400 years ago, > because there is no evidence left. well, you don't have a snap shot photograph of exactly how the earth looked pre-flood to compare with how it looks post-flood. now, the bereshith account does not say earthquakes and tsunamis and violent cataclysms caused this flood it says this flood was caused over a 40 day period where water was pushed up from below ground and rained from above, until the surface of the earth was covered in water, by an interfering conscious being God, and then the same water was allowed to return to its place and teh surface of teh earth showed again. almost as if the earth was a fish tank with a pump of water underneath and a source of water from above. and slowly, the earth is inundated, and slowly the earth is dried off. with that sort of process, the earth may have looked very much the same before as after. but, maybe not, it may look different, a little. so, we have an interfering God covering the dry land with water and moving it away, done. bereshith does not say that the ocean floor was vomitted all over the dry land. and i have no need to substantiate what bereshith does not suggest. > > ... and it looks like it never happened. ... > That was me too. It looks as if the Flood didn't happen. What we > observe tells a different story. if the process was controlled and slow, as bereshith suggests, what would you expect to see? bereshit does not suggest that the earth convulsed with hurricanes and earthquakes and violence. just water up water down, and its over. > > ... the earth has undergone lots of transformations, > >some may be remanants of a flood and some may not be. ... > Like what? What geological or geomorphological feature do you think > might be remnant of, not just 'a flood', but 'the Flood'. That's what > we're talking about. 'a flood' is trivial. easter island used to be easter mountain you used to be able to walk to australia. the atlantic ocean used to be the atlantic river. just remeber, even the molten earth crowd has to maintain that all of the water that is on the earth now, was once in space. so, it is possible that some extra water was in space. but, i'm not with the molten earth crowd for several reasons, anyway. if the earth was molten, we'd have a more uniform dispersal of ores and things like that and not huge pockets of ore here and there scattered about teh globe. > > ... disentangling these is not obvious. > >but yes, that is some awesome God, with that i agree. > Yeah! High six, brother. do you think it's "wrong" for human beings to kill animals? like cows and sharks and whatever else human beings may kill// > >> > ... The Bereshith account, does not describe a "natural disaster" and the only myth > >> >which should be debunked is the straw man that the Bereshith account must be reconciled with a naturalistic mechanism. > >> There are only naturalistic mechanisms. > >if some conscious being makes a thing happen that would not have happened otherwise, > >then, that doer is part of -your- 'naturalistic' mechanism. > Like what? Show me a phenomenon that you believe only has happened > because "some conscious being" (I assume you mean none human) made it > happen. You can't, nobody ever has, and that's why I say there are > only naturalistic mechanisms. Show me the 'black swan', if you know > what I mean. i didn't mean "non-human" but i'd cite the emanation of the physical universe itself as a phenomenon that we cannot explain with metastable-state accident. you can say; "accident" but you can't show me such an accident that results in universes. i'd still argue that skyscrapers would not appear aside from human intervention. i wouldn't say skyscrapers are built by a "naturalistic" mechanism. > >i am not using 'naturalistic' in that manner, > > Then I think you should make a new word for it is you talk about. > Naturalistic is taken. "naturalistic" was used correctly by me. > >for example, there is no 'naturalistic mechanism' [according to me] that generates ferraris from scratch. > [I see where we're headed.] i wasn't headed there but i'll bite. > >no, there are very definite designers who raise the ferrari to being from not being there. > >in this respect, ferraris do not appear according to some naturalistic mechanism. > >if you'd like to say that the designers of the ferrari are natural people and so, part of > >a 'naturalistic' mechanism, you may feel free to do so, ... > Consider it done. ok, so, a thing that is planned out by sentient beings is now "naturalistic" according to you, and so, we may as well agree that an interfering God is "naturalistic" and then you can cite an interfering God to make things that have not been shown to have been processed by gravity and electromagnetic collisions alone, as "naturalistic" an interfering God is "naturalistic" according to you. now, you can cite it and not feel uncomfortable. you show me a random scattering of any set of chemicals you like with gravity and electromagmnetism carrying out the mechanism of a living cell to produce a living cell that does not as yet exist. as of now, you have an imaginary "first organism" as such a first organism is not in evidence. if you could show me this "first organism" i might believe in it. as it is, you may just speak of it, and demand that i accept your quaint little tales. but i don't. > > ... but i don't call intentional conscious interference, "naturalistic" > I'm sure you don't. You have your own definition. Let's have a look... things "naturally" seek potential energy wells when conscious interference drives things out of these potential energy wells we're wandering into "synthetics" now, nylon may very well be a "synthetic" product, but, it may be digested in a pre-existing biochemical pathway all without suggesting that the bacteria that digest it have mutated outside of their nature so as to do so. a bacterium that can digest silk will have little trouble being able to digest nylon, it just takes an induction period to get things started. > >and a God who consciously interferes and causes a thing that would not, and perhaps could not, have happened without > >such interference, is not "naturalistic" according to my verbiage. ... > I see. 'Naturalistic mechanisms' means 'random and unguided > mechanisms'. Mechanisms that can't built a Ferrari. Can't build life. well, if all you have is gravity, electromagnetism, 98 some odd chemical elements, the elusive "heat" and light, kindly explain how these natural forces, cause the components of a living cell, gathered up from whatever source, to behave as if they were part of a working device before that device is working as if these forces were a little machine to produce a device, the living call, that then requires itself to reproduce itself. just remember, you don't have this imaginary first cell in evidence, if if you may just cite it as a given. > Can they build a Jumbo Jet? i'd say no, no, gravity, electromagnetism, 98 some odd chemical elements, the elusive heat, and light will not build a jumbo jet without conscous interference. and guppies will not swim up niagra falls either > > ... i see no real reason to go on and on about such definitions. > Oh yes, please. Stop it right now. i'll go by your rendering, and then say an interfering God is naturalistic even if that God is not composed of 98 some odd chemical elements and not subject to gravity and electromagtic forces. > >if you'd like to include a "SuperNature" into Nature, that would not be a problem for me. > Nothing is further from my mind, but I can imagine you absorb that > stuff like a sponge. there is a reality not composed of 98 some of chemical elements subject to gravity and electromagnetic forces. materialism simply does not provide a comprehensive portrait of reality.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 20:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <3j2ndb59fpfo3dqer895p4vb3bv7fgffou@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2070623 |
On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 20:14:15 -0500, Moses <moses@sinai.55> wrote: >Malte Runz wrote: >> >> Moses wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> This is exactly what you would expect to see after a massive worldwide flood. >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Did it happen? Oh yes! >> >> > >> >> >> >> > according to the Bereshith account, the flood was NOT a "natural >> >> >> >> > disaster" and the only myth which should be debunked is the myth that >> >> >> >> > the Bereshith account must be reconciled with a naturalistic mechanism. >> >> >> >> > according to the Bereshith account God poured out waters and assuaged >> >> >> >> > them, and this is not some natural catastophe upon which "God" merely >> >> >> >> > sat and watched a thing that would have happened anyway without "God's" >> >> >> >> > implementation. >> >> > >> >> >> It [flood] was a physical impossibility. >> >> > >> >> >this speaks of an interference from some outside agency, and not a physical phenomenon that would have >> >> >happened anyway if the outside agency had not taken action. calling it a "physical impossibilty" misses >> >> >that point. Clearly, a God who can create physical universes from scratch can easily cover the surface >> >> >of the earth with water. ... >> > >> >> And make it go away again. And erase all the evidence thereof. Make it >> >> look like it never happened. That's one helluva God. >> > >> > >> >i never said all evidence was erased ... > >> No, that was me. It's the only thing that could have happened, if one >> insists that the Biblical Flood had taken place 4400 years ago, >> because there is no evidence left. > >well, you don't have a snap shot photograph of exactly how the >earth looked pre-flood to compare with how it looks post-flood. Some physically impossible flood, that never happened? But actually, we do - geology, palaeontology and plenty of other -ologies. >now, the bereshith account does not say earthquakes and tsunamis and >violent cataclysms caused this flood What "account"? Made up bullshit by a pig-ignorant moron totally out of touch with reality? >it says this flood was caused over a 40 day period where water was >pushed up from below ground and rained Complete and utter nonsense. >from above, until the surface of the earth was covered in water, by an >interfering conscious being God, WHAT FUCKING GOD? >and then the same water was allowed to return to its place and teh >surface of teh earth showed again. Idiot. >almost as if the earth was a fish tank with a pump of water underneath >and a source of water from above. Idiot. >and slowly, the earth is inundated, and slowly the earth is dried off. Idiot. >with that sort of process, the earth may have looked very much the same >before as after. Idiot. >but, maybe not, it may look different, a little. so, we have an >interfering God covering WHAT FUCKING GOD? >the dry land with water and moving it away, done. bereshith does not say >that the ocean >floor was vomitted all over the dry land. and i have no need to >substantiate what >bereshith does not suggest. so fucking what? It's complete nonsense with no basis in reality. >> > ... and it looks like it never happened. ... > >> That was me too. It looks as if the Flood didn't happen. What we >> observe tells a different story. > >if the process was controlled and slow, as bereshith suggests, what >would you expect to see? Why not address the fact that the story describes a series of physical and other impossibilities? >bereshit does not suggest that the earth convulsed with hurricanes and >earthquakes and violence. >just water up water down, and its over. Idiot. >> > ... the earth has undergone lots of transformations, >> >some may be remanants of a flood and some may not be. ... > >> Like what? What geological or geomorphological feature do you think >> might be remnant of, not just 'a flood', but 'the Flood'. That's what >> we're talking about. 'a flood' is trivial. > >easter island used to be easter mountain >you used to be able to walk to australia. >the atlantic ocean used to be the atlantic river. >just remeber, even the molten earth crowd has to maintain >that all of the water that is on the earth now, was once in space. >so, it is possible that some extra water was in space. >but, i'm not with the molten earth crowd for several reasons, anyway. Idiot. >if the earth was molten, we'd have a more uniform dispersal of ores >and things like that and not huge pockets of ore here and there >scattered about teh globe. Why, moron? >> > ... disentangling these is not obvious. > >> >but yes, that is some awesome God, with that i agree. PROVE IT. >> Yeah! High six, brother. > >do you think it's "wrong" for human beings to kill animals? >like cows and sharks and whatever else human beings may kill// We're omnivores, imbecile. >> >> > ... The Bereshith account, does not describe a "natural disaster" >> >> >and the only myth which should be debunked is the straw man that >> >> >the Bereshith account must be reconciled with a naturalistic mechanism. The "account" is complete and utter bullshit. >> >> There are only naturalistic mechanisms. > >> >if some conscious being makes a thing happen that would not have >> >happened otherwise, And if pigs had wings, they might fly. >> >then, that doer is part of -your- 'naturalistic' mechanism. > >> Like what? Show me a phenomenon that you believe only has happened >> because "some conscious being" (I assume you mean none human) made it >> happen. You can't, nobody ever has, and that's why I say there are >> only naturalistic mechanisms. Show me the 'black swan', if you know >> what I mean. > >i didn't mean "non-human" but i'd cite the emanation of the physical >universe itself >as a phenomenon that we cannot explain with metastable-state accident. >you can say; "accident" but you can't show me such an accident that >results in universes. Argument from personal ignorance. There are plenty of hypotheses how it happened perfectly naturally. But unlike the deity you plucked out of your arse, they are all parsimonious and based on what is already known. More importantly, nobody insists that any one of them it how it actually happened - it could be any of these, or it could be none of them if new discoveries suggest something else. >i'd still argue that skyscrapers would not appear aside from human >intervention. SO FUCKING WHAT? We know that skyscrapers are built by humans, because we know enough about humans to know they build them. We also know that they aren't natural because we have things that _are_ natural for comparison so we can determine the difference.. Neither of which apply to your hypothetical, totally unjustified god, because you should have demonstrated it first, and showed us how you know it created the universe. And if it created everything then there is nothing natural (at that level) for comparison. We don't look at skyscrapers and say, "wow, there must be humans" - we already know humans and the sort of things they do. >i wouldn't say skyscrapers are built by a "naturalistic" mechanism. > >> >i am not using 'naturalistic' in that manner, >> >> Then I think you should make a new word for it is you talk about. >> Naturalistic is taken. > >"naturalistic" was used correctly by me. Bullshit. >> >for example, there is no 'naturalistic mechanism' [according to me] >> >that generates ferraris from scratch. So? >> [I see where we're headed.] > >i wasn't headed there but i'll bite. Idiot. >> >no, there are very definite designers who raise the ferrari to being from not being there. >> >in this respect, ferraris do not appear according to some naturalistic mechanism. We already know people design cars. We don't derive the existence of people from cars. >> >if you'd like to say that the designers of the ferrari are natural people and so, part of >> >a 'naturalistic' mechanism, you may feel free to do so, ... > >> Consider it done. > >ok, so, a thing that is planned out by sentient beings is now >"naturalistic" according to you, > and so, we may as well agree that an interfering God is "naturalistic" No, moron. There is no evidence whatsoever for it, and your fallacious arguments try to generate information where there is none. >and then you can cite >an interfering God to make things that have not been shown to have been >processed by gravity Idiot. > and electromagnetic collisions alone, as "naturalistic" Idiot. >an interfering God is "naturalistic" according to you. >now, you can cite it and not feel uncomfortable. Idiot. >you show me a random scattering of any set of chemicals you like with >gravity >and electromagmnetism carrying out the mechanism of a living cell to >produce >a living cell that does not as yet exist. Idiot. The laws of chemistry aren't random. And extremely simple cells have been produced in the lab by perfectly natural processes during abiogenesis research. http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html Elsewhere the team which carried out this research, showed that they evolved nucleic acids over subsequent generations. >as of now, you have an imaginary "first organism" as such a first >organism is not in evidence. Idiot. >if you could show me this "first organism" i might believe in it. Idiot. >as it is, you may just speak of it, and demand that i accept your quaint >little tales. Liar. >but i don't. Because you're a deluded moron in complete denial about the results of objective scientific research. >> > ... but i don't call intentional conscious interference, "naturalistic" > >> I'm sure you don't. You have your own definition. Let's have a look... > >things "naturally" seek potential energy wells > >when conscious interference drives things out of these potential energy >wells > >we're wandering into "synthetics" And? >now, nylon may very well be a "synthetic" product, > >but, it may be digested in a pre-existing biochemical pathway >all without suggesting that the bacteria that digest it have >mutated outside of their nature so as to do so. Apart from those bacteria which didn't even have this pre-existing biochemical pathway. >a bacterium that can digest silk will have little trouble being able >to digest nylon, it just takes an induction period to get things >started. Er... you really have no idea of the mechanisms involved. I suggest you Google the long term E-Coli experiment. >> >and a God who consciously interferes and causes a thing that >> >would not, and perhaps could not, have happened without >> >such interference, is not "naturalistic" according to my verbiage. ... There's no reason even to posit one, apart from one's pre-existing religious belief, because nothing points to one. Especially when there are already perfectly natural explanations. >> I see. 'Naturalistic mechanisms' means 'random and unguided >> mechanisms'. Mechanisms that can't built a Ferrari. Can't build life. ? We are the result of 13.5 billion years of unpredictable events. It is emotionally prejudicial to call them accidents. We are not the only possible outcome, either. >well, if all you have is gravity, electromagnetism, 98 some odd chemical >elements, the elusive "heat" and light, >kindly explain how these natural forces, cause the components of a >living cell, gathered up from whatever source, Go to the link I gave you - it's a presentation by the researcher who first observed the formation of proto-cells. And it was an unexpected result when he was researching abiotic proteins - these were formed by heating amino acids (themselves produced naturally by catalysing simpler compounds). When the residue was immersed in salt water, what he initially called protein spheroids were formed. But when these were investigated, they had the properties of cells - they metabolised, reproduced, responded to environmental stimuli and self-organised. Later generations even evolved nucleic acids.\ >to behave as if they were part of a working device before that device is >working as if these forces were a little >machine to produce a device, the living call, that then requires itself >to reproduce itself. >just remember, you don't have this imaginary first cell in evidence, if >if you may just cite it as a given. Idiot. > >> Can they build a Jumbo Jet? > >i'd say no, no, gravity, electromagnetism, 98 some odd chemical >elements, the elusive heat, and light >will not build a jumbo jet without conscous interference. Idiot. >and guppies will not swim up niagra falls either Idiot. >> > ... i see no real reason to go on and on about such definitions. > >> Oh yes, please. Stop it right now. > > >i'll go by your rendering, and then say an interfering God is >naturalistic WHAT FUCKING GOD? >even if that God is not composed of 98 some odd chemical elements and WHAT FUCKING GOD? >not subject to gravity and electromagtic forces. > >> >if you'd like to include a "SuperNature" into Nature, that would not be a >> >problem for me. You would, however have to demonstrate it first. >> Nothing is further from my mind, but I can imagine you absorb that >> stuff like a sponge. > >there is a reality not composed of 98 some of chemical elements subject >to gravity and electromagnetic forces. Prove it. >materialism simply does not provide a comprehensive portrait of reality. Prove it. BTW, very few people are a priori materialists. It's simply that nobody has ever been able to demonstrate anything supernatural.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 20:36 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <4l5ndbpbpmtusl9kv8tnb56eb4sfag5bn3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2070642 |
On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 20:18:00 -0600, Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 20:14:15 -0500, Moses <moses@sinai.55> wrote: > >>Malte Runz wrote: >>> >>> Moses wrote: >>> >>> >> >> >> >> This is exactly what you would expect to see after a massive worldwide flood. >>> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> Did it happen? Oh yes! >>> >> > >>> >> >> >> > according to the Bereshith account, the flood was NOT a "natural >>> >> >> >> > disaster" and the only myth which should be debunked is the myth that >>> >> >> >> > the Bereshith account must be reconciled with a naturalistic mechanism. >>> >> >> >> > according to the Bereshith account God poured out waters and assuaged >>> >> >> >> > them, and this is not some natural catastophe upon which "God" merely >>> >> >> >> > sat and watched a thing that would have happened anyway without "God's" >>> >> >> >> > implementation. >>> >> > >>> >> >> It [flood] was a physical impossibility. >>> >> > >>> >> >this speaks of an interference from some outside agency, and not a physical phenomenon that would have >>> >> >happened anyway if the outside agency had not taken action. calling it a "physical impossibilty" misses >>> >> >that point. Clearly, a God who can create physical universes from scratch can easily cover the surface >>> >> >of the earth with water. ... >>> > >>> >> And make it go away again. And erase all the evidence thereof. Make it >>> >> look like it never happened. That's one helluva God. >>> > >>> > >>> >i never said all evidence was erased ... >> >>> No, that was me. It's the only thing that could have happened, if one >>> insists that the Biblical Flood had taken place 4400 years ago, >>> because there is no evidence left. >> >>well, you don't have a snap shot photograph of exactly how the >>earth looked pre-flood to compare with how it looks post-flood. > >Some physically impossible flood, that never happened? > Maybe this flood was the one that occurred on a local basis throughout the Mediterranean basin when the Gibraltar Dam gave way due to the rising sea level after the last period of glaciation ended about 12,000 years ago. There are many submerged remains of what used to be cities in the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions. Those people regarded the Mediterranean area as "The World" and didn't have any clear insights as to what was on beyond their region. Gordon > >But actually, we do - geology, palaeontology and plenty of other >-ologies. > >>now, the bereshith account does not say earthquakes and tsunamis and >>violent cataclysms caused this flood > >What "account"? > >Made up bullshit by a pig-ignorant moron totally out of touch with >reality? > >>it says this flood was caused over a 40 day period where water was >>pushed up from below ground and rained > >Complete and utter nonsense. > >>from above, until the surface of the earth was covered in water, by an >>interfering conscious being God, > >WHAT FUCKING GOD? > >>and then the same water was allowed to return to its place and teh >>surface of teh earth showed again. > >Idiot. > >>almost as if the earth was a fish tank with a pump of water underneath >>and a source of water from above. > >Idiot. > >>and slowly, the earth is inundated, and slowly the earth is dried off. > >Idiot. > >>with that sort of process, the earth may have looked very much the same >>before as after. > >Idiot. > >>but, maybe not, it may look different, a little. so, we have an >>interfering God covering > >WHAT FUCKING GOD? > >>the dry land with water and moving it away, done. bereshith does not say >>that the ocean >>floor was vomitted all over the dry land. and i have no need to >>substantiate what >>bereshith does not suggest. > >so fucking what? It's complete nonsense with no basis in reality. > >>> > ... and it looks like it never happened. ... >> >>> That was me too. It looks as if the Flood didn't happen. What we >>> observe tells a different story. >> >>if the process was controlled and slow, as bereshith suggests, what >>would you expect to see? > >Why not address the fact that the story describes a series of physical >and other impossibilities? > >>bereshit does not suggest that the earth convulsed with hurricanes and >>earthquakes and violence. >>just water up water down, and its over. > >Idiot. > >>> > ... the earth has undergone lots of transformations, >>> >some may be remanants of a flood and some may not be. ... >> >>> Like what? What geological or geomorphological feature do you think >>> might be remnant of, not just 'a flood', but 'the Flood'. That's what >>> we're talking about. 'a flood' is trivial. >> >>easter island used to be easter mountain >>you used to be able to walk to australia. >>the atlantic ocean used to be the atlantic river. >>just remeber, even the molten earth crowd has to maintain >>that all of the water that is on the earth now, was once in space. >>so, it is possible that some extra water was in space. >>but, i'm not with the molten earth crowd for several reasons, anyway. > >Idiot. > >>if the earth was molten, we'd have a more uniform dispersal of ores >>and things like that and not huge pockets of ore here and there >>scattered about teh globe. > >Why, moron? > >>> > ... disentangling these is not obvious. >> >>> >but yes, that is some awesome God, with that i agree. > >PROVE IT. > >>> Yeah! High six, brother. >> >>do you think it's "wrong" for human beings to kill animals? >>like cows and sharks and whatever else human beings may kill// > >We're omnivores, imbecile. > >>> >> > ... The Bereshith account, does not describe a "natural disaster" >>> >> >and the only myth which should be debunked is the straw man that >>> >> >the Bereshith account must be reconciled with a naturalistic mechanism. > >The "account" is complete and utter bullshit. > >>> >> There are only naturalistic mechanisms. >> >>> >if some conscious being makes a thing happen that would not have >>> >happened otherwise, > >And if pigs had wings, they might fly. > >>> >then, that doer is part of -your- 'naturalistic' mechanism. >> >>> Like what? Show me a phenomenon that you believe only has happened >>> because "some conscious being" (I assume you mean none human) made it >>> happen. You can't, nobody ever has, and that's why I say there are >>> only naturalistic mechanisms. Show me the 'black swan', if you know >>> what I mean. >> >>i didn't mean "non-human" but i'd cite the emanation of the physical >>universe itself >>as a phenomenon that we cannot explain with metastable-state accident. >>you can say; "accident" but you can't show me such an accident that >>results in universes. > >Argument from personal ignorance. > >There are plenty of hypotheses how it happened perfectly naturally. > >But unlike the deity you plucked out of your arse, they are all >parsimonious and based on what is already known. > >More importantly, nobody insists that any one of them it how it >actually happened - it could be any of these, or it could be none of >them if new discoveries suggest something else. > >>i'd still argue that skyscrapers would not appear aside from human >>intervention. > >SO FUCKING WHAT? > >We know that skyscrapers are built by humans, because we know enough >about humans to know they build them. > >We also know that they aren't natural because we have things that >_are_ natural for comparison so we can determine the difference.. > >Neither of which apply to your hypothetical, totally unjustified god, >because you should have demonstrated it first, and showed us how you >know it created the universe. > >And if it created everything then there is nothing natural (at that >level) for comparison. > >We don't look at skyscrapers and say, "wow, there must be humans" - we >already know humans and the sort of things they do. > >>i wouldn't say skyscrapers are built by a "naturalistic" mechanism. >> >>> >i am not using 'naturalistic' in that manner, >>> >>> Then I think you should make a new word for it is you talk about. >>> Naturalistic is taken. >> >>"naturalistic" was used correctly by me. > >Bullshit. > >>> >for example, there is no 'naturalistic mechanism' [according to me] >>> >that generates ferraris from scratch. > >So? > >>> [I see where we're headed.] >> >>i wasn't headed there but i'll bite. > >Idiot. > >>> >no, there are very definite designers who raise the ferrari to being from not being there. >>> >in this respect, ferraris do not appear according to some naturalistic mechanism. > >We already know people design cars. > >We don't derive the existence of people from cars. > >>> >if you'd like to say that the designers of the ferrari are natural people and so, part of >>> >a 'naturalistic' mechanism, you may feel free to do so, ... >> >>> Consider it done. >> >>ok, so, a thing that is planned out by sentient beings is now >>"naturalistic" according to you, >> and so, we may as well agree that an interfering God is "naturalistic" > >No, moron. > >There is no evidence whatsoever for it, and your fallacious arguments >try to generate information where there is none. > >>and then you can cite >>an interfering God to make things that have not been shown to have been >>processed by gravity > >Idiot. > >> and electromagnetic collisions alone, as "naturalistic" > >Idiot. > >>an interfering God is "naturalistic" according to you. >>now, you can cite it and not feel uncomfortable. > >Idiot. > >>you show me a random scattering of any set of chemicals you like with >>gravity >>and electromagmnetism carrying out the mechanism of a living cell to >>produce >>a living cell that does not as yet exist. > >Idiot. > >The laws of chemistry aren't random. > >And extremely simple cells have been produced in the lab by perfectly >natural processes during abiogenesis research. > >http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html > >Elsewhere the team which carried out this research, showed that they >evolved nucleic acids over subsequent generations. > >>as of now, you have an imaginary "first organism" as such a first >>organism is not in evidence. > >Idiot. > >>if you could show me this "first organism" i might believe in it. > >Idiot. > >>as it is, you may just speak of it, and demand that i accept your quaint >>little tales. > >Liar. > >>but i don't. > >Because you're a deluded moron in complete denial about the results of >objective scientific research. > >>> > ... but i don't call intentional conscious interference, "naturalistic" >> >>> I'm sure you don't. You have your own definition. Let's have a look... >> >>things "naturally" seek potential energy wells >> >>when conscious interference drives things out of these potential energy >>wells >> >>we're wandering into "synthetics" > >And? > >>now, nylon may very well be a "synthetic" product, >> >>but, it may be digested in a pre-existing biochemical pathway >>all without suggesting that the bacteria that digest it have >>mutated outside of their nature so as to do so. > >Apart from those bacteria which didn't even have this pre-existing >biochemical pathway. > >>a bacterium that can digest silk will have little trouble being able >>to digest nylon, it just takes an induction period to get things >>started. > >Er... you really have no idea of the mechanisms involved. > >I suggest you Google the long term E-Coli experiment. > >>> >and a God who consciously interferes and causes a thing that >>> >would not, and perhaps could not, have happened without >>> >such interference, is not "naturalistic" according to my verbiage. ... > >There's no reason even to posit one, apart from one's pre-existing >religious belief, because nothing points to one. > >Especially when there are already perfectly natural explanations. > >>> I see. 'Naturalistic mechanisms' means 'random and unguided >>> mechanisms'. Mechanisms that can't built a Ferrari. Can't build life. > >? > >We are the result of 13.5 billion years of unpredictable events. It is >emotionally prejudicial to call them accidents. > >We are not the only possible outcome, either. > >>well, if all you have is gravity, electromagnetism, 98 some odd chemical >>elements, the elusive "heat" and light, >>kindly explain how these natural forces, cause the components of a >>living cell, gathered up from whatever source, > >Go to the link I gave you - it's a presentation by the researcher who >first observed the formation of proto-cells. > >And it was an unexpected result when he was researching abiotic >proteins - these were formed by heating amino acids (themselves >produced naturally by catalysing simpler compounds). > >When the residue was immersed in salt water, what he initially called >protein spheroids were formed. > >But when these were investigated, they had the properties of cells - >they metabolised, reproduced, responded to environmental stimuli and >self-organised. > >Later generations even evolved nucleic acids.\ > >>to behave as if they were part of a working device before that device is >>working as if these forces were a little >>machine to produce a device, the living call, that then requires itself >>to reproduce itself. >>just remember, you don't have this imaginary first cell in evidence, if >>if you may just cite it as a given. > >Idiot. > >> >>> Can they build a Jumbo Jet? >> >>i'd say no, no, gravity, electromagnetism, 98 some odd chemical >>elements, the elusive heat, and light >>will not build a jumbo jet without conscous interference. > >Idiot. > >>and guppies will not swim up niagra falls either > >Idiot. > >>> > ... i see no real reason to go on and on about such definitions. >> >>> Oh yes, please. Stop it right now. >> >> >>i'll go by your rendering, and then say an interfering God is >>naturalistic > >WHAT FUCKING GOD? > >>even if that God is not composed of 98 some odd chemical elements and > >WHAT FUCKING GOD? > >>not subject to gravity and electromagtic forces. >> >>> >if you'd like to include a "SuperNature" into Nature, that would not be a >>> >problem for me. > >You would, however have to demonstrate it first. > >>> Nothing is further from my mind, but I can imagine you absorb that >>> stuff like a sponge. >> >>there is a reality not composed of 98 some of chemical elements subject >>to gravity and electromagnetic forces. > >Prove it. > >>materialism simply does not provide a comprehensive portrait of reality. > >Prove it. > >BTW, very few people are a priori materialists. > >It's simply that nobody has ever been able to demonstrate anything >supernatural.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 20:49 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <pg6ndb1r55skgjv6armdr6e5jcj3fpvedn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2070645 |
On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 20:36:53 -0600, Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> wrote: >On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 20:18:00 -0600, Christopher A. Lee ><c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > >>On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 20:14:15 -0500, Moses <moses@sinai.55> wrote: >> >>>Malte Runz wrote: >>>> >>>> Moses wrote: >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> This is exactly what you would expect to see after a massive worldwide flood. >>>> >> > >>>> >> >> >> >> Did it happen? Oh yes! >>>> >> > >>>> >> >> >> > according to the Bereshith account, the flood was NOT a "natural >>>> >> >> >> > disaster" and the only myth which should be debunked is the myth that >>>> >> >> >> > the Bereshith account must be reconciled with a naturalistic mechanism. >>>> >> >> >> > according to the Bereshith account God poured out waters and assuaged >>>> >> >> >> > them, and this is not some natural catastophe upon which "God" merely >>>> >> >> >> > sat and watched a thing that would have happened anyway without "God's" >>>> >> >> >> > implementation. >>>> >> > >>>> >> >> It [flood] was a physical impossibility. >>>> >> > >>>> >> >this speaks of an interference from some outside agency, and not a physical phenomenon that would have >>>> >> >happened anyway if the outside agency had not taken action. calling it a "physical impossibilty" misses >>>> >> >that point. Clearly, a God who can create physical universes from scratch can easily cover the surface >>>> >> >of the earth with water. ... >>>> > >>>> >> And make it go away again. And erase all the evidence thereof. Make it >>>> >> look like it never happened. That's one helluva God. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >i never said all evidence was erased ... >>> >>>> No, that was me. It's the only thing that could have happened, if one >>>> insists that the Biblical Flood had taken place 4400 years ago, >>>> because there is no evidence left. >>> >>>well, you don't have a snap shot photograph of exactly how the >>>earth looked pre-flood to compare with how it looks post-flood. >> >>Some physically impossible flood, that never happened? >> >Maybe this flood was the one that occurred on a local basis throughout >the Mediterranean basin when the Gibraltar Dam gave way due to the >rising sea level after the last period of glaciation ended about >12,000 years ago. There are many submerged remains of what used to be >cities in the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions. Those people >regarded the Mediterranean area as "The World" and didn't have any >clear insights as to what was on beyond their region. Gordon Except that the story originated in the Tigris and Euphrates Valleys, not the Mediterranean - there's a lot of land between them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "%" <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 19:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <97crhn.qmo.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #2070649 |
Christopher A. Lee wrote: > On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 20:36:53 -0600, Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> > wrote: > >> On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 20:18:00 -0600, Christopher A. Lee >> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 20:14:15 -0500, Moses <moses@sinai.55> wrote: >>> >>>> Malte Runz wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Moses wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is exactly what you would expect to see after a >>>>>>>>>>>>> massive worldwide flood. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Did it happen? Oh yes! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> according to the Bereshith account, the flood was NOT a >>>>>>>>>>>> "natural >>>>>>>>>>>> disaster" and the only myth which should be debunked is >>>>>>>>>>>> the myth that >>>>>>>>>>>> the Bereshith account must be reconciled with a >>>>>>>>>>>> naturalistic mechanism. >>>>>>>>>>>> according to the Bereshith account God poured out waters >>>>>>>>>>>> and assuaged >>>>>>>>>>>> them, and this is not some natural catastophe upon which >>>>>>>>>>>> "God" merely >>>>>>>>>>>> sat and watched a thing that would have happened anyway >>>>>>>>>>>> without "God's" >>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It [flood] was a physical impossibility. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> this speaks of an interference from some outside agency, and >>>>>>>> not a physical phenomenon that would have happened anyway if >>>>>>>> the outside agency had not taken action. calling it a >>>>>>>> "physical impossibilty" misses that point. Clearly, a God who >>>>>>>> can create physical universes from scratch can easily cover >>>>>>>> the surface of the earth with water. ... >>>>>> >>>>>>> And make it go away again. And erase all the evidence thereof. >>>>>>> Make it >>>>>>> look like it never happened. That's one helluva God. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> i never said all evidence was erased ... >>>> >>>>> No, that was me. It's the only thing that could have happened, if >>>>> one >>>>> insists that the Biblical Flood had taken place 4400 years ago, >>>>> because there is no evidence left. >>>> >>>> well, you don't have a snap shot photograph of exactly how the >>>> earth looked pre-flood to compare with how it looks post-flood. >>> >>> Some physically impossible flood, that never happened? >>> >> Maybe this flood was the one that occurred on a local basis >> throughout >> the Mediterranean basin when the Gibraltar Dam gave way due to the >> rising sea level after the last period of glaciation ended about >> 12,000 years ago. There are many submerged remains of what used to be >> cities in the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions. Those people >> regarded the Mediterranean area as "The World" and didn't have any >> clear insights as to what was on beyond their region. Gordon > > Except that the story originated in the Tigris and Euphrates Valleys, > not the Mediterranean - there's a lot of land between them. more room for the truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Moses <moses@sinai.6y> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 22:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <56DBA872.6F57@lycos.com> |
| In reply to | #2070642 |
> > you show me a random scattering of any set of chemicals you like with gravity > > and electromagmnetism carrying out the mechanism of a living cell to produce > > a living cell that does not as yet exist. > And extremely simple cells have been produced in the lab by perfectly > natural processes during abiogenesis research. just the same as it does not surprise me that RNA taken off the shelf as an isolate from a living organism, should still be able to carry out the same functionality as it would when it is actually in the living cell, that a non-living component of a cell should still carry out chemical behaviors that are similar to living cells is not unexpected. shelf RNA is not "alive" but the shelf RNA does some of the things the living cell RNA does. doing these things is not make the shelf RNA "alive" likewise, "dead" chemicals can give the appearance of living qualities, somewhat like watching a dead frog's leg kick when enticed with an electrical current. the dead tissue is doing what it would do if alive, artificially. it's mimicking a living process, but is not itself alive. these protein aggregates are not alive. action potential is a characteristic of the chemical make-up and what can be concluded is that isolated non-living chemical arrangements may still exhibit the action potential that would be seen in a living organism without the substance, itself, being "alive" the same argument can be applied to the other "characteristics" of the protein aggregates that are also found in living organisms. basically what you've got there is the "egg shell" Q. "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" A. "the egg shell" trouble is, the egg shell isn't alive "first organism" still imaginary > We are the result of 13.5 billion years of unpredictable events. "science" needs reproducibility, and you cannot substantiate "unpredictable events" with reproducible results. > It is emotionally prejudicial to call them accidents. "accidents" tend to be "unpredictable events"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 22:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ejcndbhlh3pfvmvi98pno6s3nkl80cs04i@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2070674 |
On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 22:48:02 -0500, Moses <moses@sinai.6y> wrote: >> > you show me a random scattering of any set of chemicals you like with gravity >> > and electromagmnetism carrying out the mechanism of a living cell to produce >> > a living cell that does not as yet exist. > >> And extremely simple cells have been produced in the lab by perfectly >> natural processes during abiogenesis research. > >just the same as it does not surprise me that RNA taken off the shelf as an isolate from a living organism, >should still be able to carry out the same functionality as it would when it is actually in the living cell, >that a non-living component of a cell should still carry out chemical behaviors that are similar to living >cells is not unexpected. Where did I mention any of that, imbecile? You didn't read the link I gave you, did you, which you deleted? Please try to be a little less dishonest next time. Here it is, again... http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html In case you can't be bothered to read it this time, either... It describes the progression from simple, naturally occurring compounds to amino acids, to thermal proteins, to simple proto-cells which satisfy the textbook definition of life, ie they metabolise, reproduce, respond to environmental stimuli and self-organise. And another article by the same team describes how their descendents even evolve nucleic acids. >shelf RNA is not "alive" but the shelf RNA does some of the things the living cell RNA does. >doing these things is not make the shelf RNA "alive" Where did I mention "shelf DNA", imbecile? >likewise, "dead" chemicals can give the appearance of living qualities, somewhat like >watching a dead frog's leg kick when enticed with an electrical current. And? >the dead tissue is doing what it would do if alive, artificially. it's mimicking a living process, >but is not itself alive. these protein aggregates are not alive. action potential is a characteristic >of the chemical make-up and what can be concluded is that isolated non-living chemical arrangements >may still exhibit the action potential that would be seen in a living organism without the substance, >itself, being "alive" SO FUCKING WHAT? >the same argument can be applied to the other "characteristics" of the protein aggregates >that are also found in living organisms. > >basically what you've got there is the "egg shell" Liar. >Q. "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" > >A. "the egg shell" Idiot. > >trouble is, the egg shell isn't alive > >"first organism" still imaginary Liar. > >> We are the result of 13.5 billion years of unpredictable events. > >"science" needs reproducibility, and you cannot substantiate >unpredictable events" with reproducible results. That's just one way of doing it, imbecile. It's also about observation, inference and prediction to confirm or refute the inference. But the proto cells described in the link I gave you, are so repeatable that students duplicate the original experiment as routine course work. >> It is emotionally prejudicial to call them accidents. > >"accidents" tend to be "unpredictable events" So? But "accident" also implies that something shouldn't have happened, which is much more than just an unpredictable event. Now, why not have the honesty to address what I took the time and effort to post, instead of attacking something I didn't?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Moses <moses@sinai.56> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 23:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <56DBB69D.35C2@sinai.56> |
| In reply to | #2070689 |
> >> > you show me a random scattering of any set of chemicals you like with gravity > >> > and electromagmnetism carrying out the mechanism of a living cell to produce > >> > a living cell that does not as yet exist. > > > >> And extremely simple cells have been produced in the lab by perfectly > >> natural processes during abiogenesis research. > >just the same as it does not surprise me that RNA taken off the shelf as an isolate from a living organism, > >should still be able to carry out the same functionality as it would when it is actually in the living cell, > >that a non-living component of a cell should still carry out chemical behaviors that are similar to living > >cells is not unexpected. > Where did I mention any of that, i mentioned that. i mentioned that because it was relevant to the conclusions drawn from the thermalprotein bit. > You didn't read the link I gave you, did you, which you deleted? i looked at it, and i mentioned the RNA bit because it is relevant. > It describes the progression from simple, naturally occurring > compounds to amino acids, to thermal proteins, to simple proto-cells > which satisfy the textbook definition of life, ie they metabolise, > reproduce, respond to environmental stimuli and self-organise. i'd still sort of be interested in what would happen to these amino acids in heated sea water and not plaine olde NaCl solutions, sea water is a little bit different, lots of different minerals. magnesium sulfate is a bit different from sodium chloride. NaCl solutions are not entirely realistic. and no, it sort of tries to tweak the "definition" of living to fit the non-living chemical behaviors shown. they aggregate, and they respond when you hit them with electrical discharges like a dead frog's leg jumps if you leave the water cool after the first proteins are formed no new thermal proteins are formed. etc > >> We are the result of 13.5 billion years of unpredictable events. > >"science" needs reproducibility, and you cannot substantiate > >unpredictable events" with reproducible results. > That's just one way of doing it, imbecile. > It's also about observation, inference and prediction to confirm or > refute the inference. now you're "predicting" events which you just two seconds ago called "unpredictable" go figure. > But the proto cells described in the link I gave you, are so > repeatable that students duplicate the original experiment as routine > course work. always in warm NaCl solutions and not in heated sea water which would, at least, be a little more realistic even if we don't know the salinity of the early oceans exactly and precisely. we can be sure that it was not NaCl alone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 23:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <pjendbhmhvrv50ps598cvcjgjf7oa87jj5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2070709 |
On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 23:48:29 -0500, Moses <moses@sinai.56> wrote: > >> >> > you show me a random scattering of any set of chemicals you like with gravity >> >> > and electromagmnetism carrying out the mechanism of a living cell to produce >> >> > a living cell that does not as yet exist. >> > >> >> And extremely simple cells have been produced in the lab by perfectly >> >> natural processes during abiogenesis research. > >> >just the same as it does not surprise me that RNA taken off the shelf as an isolate from a living organism, >> >should still be able to carry out the same functionality as it would when it is actually in the living cell, >> >that a non-living component of a cell should still carry out chemical behaviors that are similar to living >> >cells is not unexpected. > >> Where did I mention any of that, > >i mentioned that. i mentioned that because it was relevant to the conclusions >drawn from the thermalprotein bit. No, liar. The work described in the link you never bothered to follow, was nothing like that. >> You didn't read the link I gave you, did you, which you deleted? > >i looked at it, and i mentioned the RNA bit because it is relevant. No, liar. These proto cells didn't even have RNA, although they evolved nucleic acids over subsequent generations. And when the contents of the cells were removed, they left the same kind of "empty shell" you described. But they didn't use anything from a pre-existing cell. >> It describes the progression from simple, naturally occurring >> compounds to amino acids, to thermal proteins, to simple proto-cells >> which satisfy the textbook definition of life, ie they metabolise, >> reproduce, respond to environmental stimuli and self-organise. > >i'd still sort of be interested in what would happen to these amino acids >in heated sea water and not plaine olde NaCl solutions, sea water is a >little bit different, lots of different minerals. And? Since the original work it's even been seen using plain old H2O. >magnesium sulfate is a bit different from sodium chloride. NaCl >solutions are not entirely realistic. And the main component of sea water, apart from the H2O is dissolved NaCl. >and no, it sort of tries to tweak the "definition" of living > to fit the non-living chemical behaviors shown. No, liar. That was already the textbook definition, the one in dictionaries and the scientific one. You'll say any old lie to try and discredit objective research. Good thing scientists aren't as dishonest as you are. But then, if they were, science wouldn't work. Because people rely on earlier results in their own work. And if their own work fail because earlier results were fudged, this gets found out when they investigate why it failed. So the fudging gets found out, and the fudgers don't get any more work in scientific research because they can't be trusted. >they aggregate, and they respond when you hit them with > electrical discharges like a dead frog's leg jumps Idiot. >if you leave the water cool after the first proteins are formed no >new thermal proteins are formed. So? By the time the proto cells reproduce, this isn't necessary any more. >etc > >> >> We are the result of 13.5 billion years of unpredictable events. > >> >"science" needs reproducibility, and you cannot substantiate >> >unpredictable events" with reproducible results. > >> That's just one way of doing it, imbecile. > >> It's also about observation, inference and prediction to confirm or >> refute the inference. > >now you're "predicting" events which you just two seconds ago >called "unpredictable" No, pathological liar. >go figure. Idiot. >> But the proto cells described in the link I gave you, are so >> repeatable that students duplicate the original experiment as routine >> course work. > >always in warm NaCl solutions and not in heated sea water which would, >at least, be a little more realistic even if we don't know the salinity >of the early oceans exactly and precisely. Actually, even in plain old water. It was first seen with salt water. >we can be sure that it was not NaCl alone. It's the water.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Moses <moses@sinai.56> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 02:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <56DBE167.4E5@sinai.56> |
| In reply to | #2070721 |
> >> >> > you show me a random scattering of any set of chemicals you like with gravity > >> >> > and electromagmnetism carrying out the mechanism of a living cell to produce > >> >> > a living cell that does not as yet exist. > >> > > >> >> And extremely simple cells have been produced in the lab by perfectly > >> >> natural processes during abiogenesis research. > > > >> >just the same as it does not surprise me that RNA taken off the shelf as an isolate from a living organism, > >> >should still be able to carry out the same functionality as it would when it is actually in the living cell, > >> >that a non-living component of a cell should still carry out chemical behaviors that are similar to living > >> >cells is not unexpected. > > > >> Where did I mention any of that, > > > >i mentioned that. i mentioned that because it was relevant to the conclusions > >drawn from the thermalprotein bit. > The work described in the link you never bothered to follow, was > nothing like that. i looked at it, and this is my reply to it. just the same as it does not surprise me that RNA taken off the shelf as an isolate from a living organism, should still be able to carry out the same functionality as it would when it is actually in the living cell, that a non-living component of a cell should still carry out chemical behaviors that are similar to living cells is not unexpected. shelf RNA is not "alive" but the shelf RNA does some of the things the living cell RNA does. doing these things is not make the shelf RNA "alive" likewise, "dead" chemicals can give the appearance of living qualities, somewhat like watching a dead frog's leg kick when enticed with an electrical current. the dead tissue is doing what it would do if alive, artificially. it's mimicking a living process, but is not itself alive. these protein aggregates are not alive. action potential is a characteristic of the chemical make-up and what can be concluded is that isolated non-living chemical arrangements may still exhibit the action potential that would be seen in a living organism without the substance, itself, being "alive" the same argument can be applied to the other "characteristics" of the protein aggregates that are also found in living organisms. basically what you've got there is the "egg shell" Q. "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" A. "the egg shell" trouble is, the egg shell isn't alive "first organism" still imaginary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 02:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vmondbpte238kqgn0ce4psttqn7csdkdr4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2070732 |
On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 02:51:03 -0500, Moses <moses@sinai.56> wrote: > >> >> >> > you show me a random scattering of any set of chemicals you like with gravity >> >> >> > and electromagmnetism carrying out the mechanism of a living cell to produce >> >> >> > a living cell that does not as yet exist. >> >> > >> >> >> And extremely simple cells have been produced in the lab by perfectly >> >> >> natural processes during abiogenesis research. >> > >> >> >just the same as it does not surprise me that RNA taken off the shelf as an isolate from a living organism, >> >> >should still be able to carry out the same functionality as it would when it is actually in the living cell, >> >> >that a non-living component of a cell should still carry out chemical behaviors that are similar to living >> >> >cells is not unexpected. >> > >> >> Where did I mention any of that, >> > >> >i mentioned that. i mentioned that because it was relevant to the conclusions >> >drawn from the thermalprotein bit. > >> The work described in the link you never bothered to follow, was >> nothing like that. > >i looked at it, and this is my reply to it. You looked at it, and perhaps skimmed it. But you didn't read it. They metabolised and reproduced. >just the same as it does not surprise me that RNA taken off the shelf as an isolate from a living organism, >should still be able to carry out the same functionality as it would when it is actually in the living cell, >that a non-living component of a cell should still carry out chemical behaviors that are similar to living >cells is not unexpected. THERE WEREN'T NUCLEIC ACIDS IN THE ORIGINAL PROTO CELLS - THESE EVOLVED IN THEIR DESCENDANTS. Which shows they weren't merely chemicals mimicking the function of cells. >shelf RNA is not "alive" but the shelf RNA does some of the things the living cell RNA does. >doing these things is not make the shelf RNA "alive" Irrelevant. >likewise, "dead" chemicals can give the appearance of living qualities, somewhat like >watching a dead frog's leg kick when enticed with an electrical current. Irrelevant. >the dead tissue is doing what it would do if alive, artificially. it's mimicking a living process, >but is not itself alive. these protein aggregates are not alive. action potential is a characteristic >of the chemical make-up and what can be concluded is that isolated non-living chemical arrangements >may still exhibit the action potential that would be seen in a living organism without the substance, >itself, being "alive" Irrelevant. >the same argument can be applied to the other "characteristics" of the protein aggregates >that are also found in living organisms. Irrelevant. >basically what you've got there is the "egg shell" It's a heck of a lot more than that. >Q. "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" > >A. "the egg shell" > >trouble is, the egg shell isn't alive > >"first organism" still imaginary Only because you want it to be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Moses <moses@sinai.56> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 03:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <56DBE967.14A3@sinai.56> |
| In reply to | #2070734 |
> >> >> >> > you show me a random scattering of any set of chemicals you like with gravity > >> >> >> > and electromagmnetism carrying out the mechanism of a living cell to produce > >> >> >> > a living cell that does not as yet exist. > >> >> > > >> >> >> And extremely simple cells have been produced in the lab by perfectly > >> >> >> natural processes during abiogenesis research. > >> > > >> >> >just the same as it does not surprise me that RNA taken off the shelf as an isolate from a living organism, > >> >> >should still be able to carry out the same functionality as it would when it is actually in the living cell, > >> >> >that a non-living component of a cell should still carry out chemical behaviors that are similar to living > >> >> >cells is not unexpected. > >> > > >> >> Where did I mention any of that, > >> > > >> >i mentioned that. i mentioned that because it was relevant to the conclusions > >> >drawn from the thermalprotein bit. > > > >> The work described in the link you never bothered to follow, was > >> nothing like that. > > > >i looked at it, and this is my reply to it. > > You looked at it, and perhaps skimmed it. But you didn't read it. > > They metabolised and reproduced. that flavins may be found in the bubbles and flavins have metabolic activities in living cells, does not suggest that these bubbles are using flavins to feed themselves. they are not. these bubbles are not gleaning energies from surrounding molecules used as foodstuffs. atp ==> adp etc, is not energizing the bubbles themselves. they don't reproduce like a living bacterial culture, they bubble out like boiling sugar in candy making process, one big blob separates into many little blobs, it is a simple physical process like oil bubbles in water, which, like i said, constitutes, at best, an egg shell. here's a review of a review; http://www.jstor.org/stable/2830230?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents "Salthe's Review of my book, The Emergence of Life: Darwinian Evolution from the Inside, has raised anew the question of whether life has been synthesized in the lab. Salthe states that the book "...verges on implying that, without knowing at the time, his group synthesized life in the lab... but almost no one would say that, without genes, [microspheres] are alive."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 09:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <8hcodbtjs5ck6vjidimvuuffedpkbhdepc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2070738 |
On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 03:25:11 -0500, Moses <moses@sinai.56> wrote: >> >> >> >> > you show me a random scattering of any set of chemicals you like with gravity >> >> >> >> > and electromagmnetism carrying out the mechanism of a living cell to produce >> >> >> >> > a living cell that does not as yet exist. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> And extremely simple cells have been produced in the lab by perfectly >> >> >> >> natural processes during abiogenesis research. >> >> > >> >> >> >just the same as it does not surprise me that RNA taken off the shelf as an isolate from a living organism, >> >> >> >should still be able to carry out the same functionality as it would when it is actually in the living cell, >> >> >> >that a non-living component of a cell should still carry out chemical behaviors that are similar to living >> >> >> >cells is not unexpected. >> >> > >> >> >> Where did I mention any of that, >> >> > >> >> >i mentioned that. i mentioned that because it was relevant to the conclusions >> >> >drawn from the thermalprotein bit. >> > >> >> The work described in the link you never bothered to follow, was >> >> nothing like that. >> > >> >i looked at it, and this is my reply to it. >> >> You looked at it, and perhaps skimmed it. But you didn't read it. >> >> They metabolised and reproduced. > > >that flavins may be found in the bubbles and flavins have metabolic activities in living cells, >does not suggest that these bubbles are using flavins to feed themselves. they are not. these What "bubbles" were you lying about? And nobody said these protocells fed on flavins. Initially the nutrients would have been the amino acids and other simple compounds in the same liquid where they were formed. And don't forget that when the protocells formed, conditions changed from one large "lab environment" to one per protocell in which the reactions could be different. >bubbles are not gleaning energies from surrounding molecules used as foodstuffs. > atp ==> adp etc, is not energizing the bubbles themselves. What "bubbles" are you lying about? They have primitive cell walls, which are semi-permeable membranes allowing smaller molecules in and out (the nutrients and waste products), but keeping the larger molecules inside, The nutrients react with the larger molecules. >they don't reproduce like a living bacterial culture, Nobody ever said they did, imbecile. I thought you had said you real the presentation. If you had, it was pretty clear that it showed they reproduced by budding, the same way yeasts do. There were even pretty pictures, photos taken through microscopes showing this. So I can only conclude that you were lying when you claimed to have read it. Or you skimmed through looking for something you could take out of context to deny the results of the experiments. Because you're a creationist who wants them not to have done what they did. > they bubble out like boiling sugar in candy Liar. >making process, one big blob separates into many little blobs, it is a simple physical process Liar. They're driven by the molecules that can't get out through the membrane walls because they got too large or too many to fit any more. >like oil bubbles in water, which, like i said, constitutes, at best, an egg shell. Liar. >here's a review of a review; No, moron, a response by the original researcher to what a reviewer thought was a problem. Or didn't you notice that its author was the same person who gave the original presentation which you didn't bother to read, either? >http://www.jstor.org/stable/2830230?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents > >"Salthe's Review of my book, The Emergence of Life: Darwinian Evolution >from the Inside, has raised anew the question of whether life has been >synthesized in the lab. Salthe states that the book "...verges on implying that, >without knowing at the time, his group synthesized life in the lab... >but almost no one would say that, without genes, [microspheres] are alive." You used the fallacy of argument from authority, with a dishonest, out-of-context, cherry-picked quote of a quote without explaining _why_ that was said, as bogus authority. It went on to give, and which you clearly never bothered to read, Fox's own answer to that, Hint: Fox was the original researcher who discovered protocell formation while working on abiotic protein formation. It's a common writing style to describe apparent objections and them to answer them because it establishes the context of the response. Which Fox was doing, Even though your dishonestly cherry picked, out-of-context quote made it look as if Fox agreed with Salthe. The rest of that paragraph which is copied without permission from the very page you quote-mined, is Fox's answer to Salthe. Any typos are my own... "My acquaintance with many similar comments has prompted the present analysis of what is obviously a source of perplexity. The perplexity may exist in large part because of the need for participation in the specifics of life by RNA, which is seen on close analysis, however, as requiring a 'simpler' precursor (Waldrop, 1989)". Did you honestly miss that? His response went on to say... "The difficulty appears to derive also from the fact that, on one hand, a laboratory-assembled organism is being used for specification, whereas a fully modern organism is used by others as a atandard of functionality. Most students are necessarily less familiar with the findings in forward-directed evolutionary experiments (Fox, 1988b) than with existing organisms. The laboratory organism (protein microsphere) in question has arisen under presumably primitive conditions, since the thermal protein from which it is assembled is made by seemingly crude geological heating of mixtures of amino acids. Historically, the first finding of self-organisation from such precursor protein to a cell (Fox et al, 1959) is also a process of [me: more than five decades ago, this isn't new] [me again: of course, if you reject evolution from simpler organisms into more common lifeforms, you will reject all this - which is why you are doing anything you can to find fault with the research, including outright lie, even though it won't un-happen] maximal simplicity. These are processes disarmingly more direct than the extremely complex ATP-energized set of reactions required for the synthesis of modern proteins. On the other hand, the answer strains conventional thinking because it spans more than three billion years. "The 'synthesis' of an organism in the lab holds special significance as an affirmation of cell analyses. This relationship and conceptual need has been explained by Young (1984). Such verification is an extension to cellular science from organic chemistry (Fox, 1975) in which synthesis of bioorganic compounds is traditional confirmation by organic chemists of the chemical structure of a natural compound." In other words, he repeated Salthe's objection before answering it, in order to give the context of his answer. It's how you know what he was talking about. And you ignored his response to that. He phrased what I have explained in layman's terms, rather more scientifically and more precisely. But this is a perfect example why one should understand something well enough explain it in one's own words. FWIW, here is what I wrote in response to you, before I followed your link... And DNA wasn't part of the definition of life which, in spite of your earlier lies, was independent of the discovery of the protocells. [never heard of RNA life, which is considered to be the precursor of DNA life? which is why it isn't part of the definition] Do you have a better definition for life, that is accepted by the scientific community? Nobody is claiming that these are modern life, because nobody expects abiogenesis research to produce that. But in any case, the descendants of these protocells (they actually reproduce, remember?) evolved nucleic acids which the original ones didn't have. [His reference to (Waldrop, 1989)] None of this will go away, no matter how many in-denial creationists deliberately and dishonestly misrepresent it. And don't forget, DNA life was considered to have evolved from earlier RNA life. Has anybody demonstrated the formation of DNA outside cells, let alone protocells? Hint: no. However, Fox demonstrated the formation of simpler nucleic acids in cells evolving from others that didn't have them at all. [which would have been precursors of more complex, modern ones] Do you reject the idea that life evolved from simpler, earlier life forms? [If not, you are living in cloud-cuckoo land and have nothing to say on the subject] Palaeontology showed this decades ago, going back to the earliest unicellular micro-fossils. [his more than three billion years] Given that the earliest life would have been extremely simple, and nothing like the far more complex modern life, why would you expect abiogenesis research to come up with anything more complex than the very simplest protocells in the transition from non-life to life? And why not at least _try_ to come up with honest objections instead of making up nonsense including outright falsehoods?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Moses <moses@sinai.54> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 11:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <56DC61CE.54BA@here.not-valid-address> |
| In reply to | #2070808 |
> >> You looked at it, and perhaps skimmed it. But you didn't read it. > >> > >> They metabolised and reproduced. > > > > > >that flavins may be found in the bubbles and flavins have metabolic activities in living cells, > >does not suggest that these bubbles are using flavins to feed themselves. they are not. these > What "bubbles" were you lying about? the proteinoid microspheres are bubbles, and they are not proteins as are found in actual living organisms they have unnatural kinked and branched chains and are not linear and they always form a racemic mixture of D and L forms where living organisms as we know all always have only the L form. if that process always results in a racemic mixture of D and L, even starting with all L amino acids, and all subsequent actual cells "evolved" from them, we should not see the preference for L forms in the living cell structure, which we do see. the so-called proto-cells are racemates, and must be racemates by virtue of the process itself and cannot and do not purify their chirality before forming the microspheres but that real organisms evolved from these majically lose this in favor of homochirality. if those microspheres which are racemates started inventing nucleic acids based on themselves, we should see racemic nucleic acids but we don't. you may be able to show me how a mixture of racemic amino acids can be chirally purified, but the process itself of heating destroys this purity in favor of the racemic mixture in the microsphere again. and another trouble is, the starting materials which are clean dried purified amino acids in very specific proportions do not occur "naturally" and you have to rig the experiment and then make up stories after the fact to make those conditions conform to some imaginary earth conditions. these bubbles simply aggregate due to electrostatic interactions and appear to grow in size until the pop and split in to two smaller bubbles but this is only an illusion of binary fission. a snowball forms and rolls downhill for a while and gathers up more and more snow, until other natural forces break it in pieces.it may look as if it is "growing" but its just amassing more bulk from other proteinoids in the surrounding enviroment, until the strain gets to great and it pops. and when they pop, they appear to move, but it is not intentional motillity. it's not even at all like a little pseudopod inching across the floor which the real little living organism does intentionally as if seeks out foodstuffs which this assembly of detritus does not do. i already addressed some of the other bits earlier.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 14:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <sivodb5k5mg7htsk0t55sktiaqar18lo67@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2070842 |
On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 11:58:54 -0500, Moses <moses@sinai.54> wrote: Your dishonest, unmarked response by Fox himself, to Salthe's review, is noted. Where he addressed Salthe's objections. But you're a creationist, and it is impossible to be an honest one. >> >> You looked at it, and perhaps skimmed it. But you didn't read it. >> >> >> >> They metabolised and reproduced. >> > >> > >> >that flavins may be found in the bubbles and flavins have metabolic activities in living cells, >> >does not suggest that these bubbles are using flavins to feed themselves. they are not. these > >> What "bubbles" were you lying about? > >the proteinoid microspheres are bubbles, No. liar. READ THE FUCKING PRESENTATION, AND LOOK AT THE MICRO-PHOTOGRAPHS. And you also deleted the response to your falsehoood about using flavins to feed themselves - which they don't do because the nutients are the same amino acid etc "soup" in which the protocells formed. > and they are not proteins as are found >in actual living organisms SO FUCKING WHAT? WHY DO YOU EXPECT MODERN PROTEINS? > they have unnatural kinked and branched chains and are not >linear and they always form a racemic mixture of D and L forms where living organisms >as we know all always have only the L form. if that process always results in a WHY DO YOU EXPECT MODERN LIVING ORGANISMS? >racemic mixture of D and L, even starting with all L amino acids, and all subsequent >actual cells "evolved" from them, we should not see the preference for L forms in the >living cell structure, which we do see. the so-called proto-cells are racemates, and >must be racemates by virtue of the process itself and cannot and do not purify their >chirality before forming the microspheres but that real organisms evolved from these >majically lose this in favor of homochirality. if those microspheres which are racemates >started inventing nucleic acids based on themselves, we should see racemic nucleic acids >but we don't. you may be able to show me how a mixture of racemic amino acids can be >chirally purified, but the process itself of heating destroys >this purity in favor of the racemic mixture in the microsphere again. WHY DO YOU EXPECT MODERN FORMS OF LIVING ORGANISMS? >and another trouble is, the starting materials which are clean dried purified amino >acids in very specific proportions do not occur "naturally" and you have to rig >the experiment and then make up stories after the fact to make those conditions >conform to some imaginary earth conditions. Liar. Many times over. Where did the presentation say anything about "clean, dried, purified amino acids in specific proportions? There was no "rigging of the experiment". At that point, the research was into protein formation, not the origin of life. And simply put, it was just heat and any old mixture of amino acids as long as it included aspartic acid and/or glutamic acid. From the presentation, which you clearly never bothered to read... "When brought into contact with water, all tested thermal polymers of amino acids, without exception, have been found to organize themselves into cells, as described in the 1984 meeting. "We learned that we could avoid the decomposition if we included in the mixture to be heated a sufficient proportion of one or both of two amino acids: aspartic acid and/or glutamic acid." This was "what happens if we do this?" science. The protocells took him by surprise, the first time. About halfway down the presentation, there was the remark that "When brought into contact with water, all tested thermal polymers of amino acids, without exception, have been found to organize themselves into cells, as described in the 1984 meeting". >these bubbles simply aggregate due to electrostatic interactions and appear to grow in size WHAT FUCKING BUBBLES ARE YOU LYING ABOUT? >until the pop and split in to two smaller bubbles but this is only an illusion of binary fission. Liar. >a snowball forms and rolls downhill for a while and gathers up more and more snow, until >other natural forces break it in pieces.it may look as if it is "growing" but its just Idiot. >amassing more bulk from other proteinoids in the surrounding enviroment, until No, moron - these can't get through the double layered membrane that forms the cell wall. >the strain gets to great and it pops. and when they pop, they appear to move, > but it is not intentional motillity. it's not even at all like a little >pseudopod inching across the floor which the real little living organism Nobody ever said it was, liar. >does intentionally as if seeks out foodstuffs which this assembly >of detritus does not do. It's surrounded by nutrients, imbecile. >i already addressed some of the other bits earlier. Where, liar? Why are you so desparate to dismiss this objective research that you need to lie about it and misrepresent it? Why didn't you even bother to read what you are criticising out of nothing more than deliberate ignorance and a psychological need for it to be false? Come back when you want an honest discussion. But not until then. But then you are a creationist so you can't hold one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 21:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <56DE3A18.2C52@here.not-valid-address> |
| In reply to | #2070921 |
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> Moses wrote:
> >> >> You looked at it, and perhaps skimmed it. But you didn't read it.
> >> >> They metabolised and reproduced.
> >> >that flavins may be found in the bubbles and flavins have metabolic activities in living cells,
> >> >does not suggest that these bubbles are using flavins to feed themselves. they are not. these
> >> What "bubbles" were you lying about?
> >the proteinoid microspheres are bubbles,
> READ PRESENTATION, AND LOOK AT THE MICRO-PHOTOGRAPHS.
there's another glaring problem with the relevance of the Fox work. not that it isn't interesting work, but
the miller-urey type experiments produces the amino acids glycine and alanine in approximately 2% yield
[1.05%] and [0.75%] respectively, depending on the amount of carbon supplied as methane. More complex
amino acids such as glutamic acid and leucine are produced in smaller amounts about 0.026% of the total
that's an 80 to 1 abundance of glycine and alanine to the rest, which includes glutamic
the actual proportions may be even greater.
[from harbinger Fox note] speaking of the decomposition which occurs when you heat amino acids
\\\\
"We learned that we could avoid the decomposition if we included in the mixture to be heated
a sufficient proportion of one or both of two amino acids: aspartic acid and/or glutamic acid." /lysine also works
\\\
this part of the experiment cannot be carried out in aqueous solution because the production
of water in the polymerization process makes the reaction non-spontaneous
[amino acid] + [amino acid] <===> [amino acid polymer] + water
free energy favors reactants
so, the reason for the excessive proportions of those particular acids is that, aspartic lysine glutamic acids
form melts when heated, and the melts constitute the solvent system where the other amino acids may form co-polymers
with the solvent system. meaning when you form a melt with aspartic lysine or glutamic acids you can then dope in
other amino acids and the reaction proceeds in a 'non-aqueous' environment/solvent system.
glycine alanine and all the rest do not form melts.
trouble here is that the "natural" abundance of amino acids formed by the electrical discharge experiments
show a glaring =poverty= of the amino acids that form melts, and which must be employed in =excess= proportion
in the Fox experiment.
so, our "experimenter" must step in and alter the natural abundance to get his experiment to proceed.
these proportions are not "natural" as shown from the electrical discharge experiments and so,
nullify the Fox experiment as not a naturalistic reproduction of pre-biotic chemistry.
> >and another trouble is, the starting materials which are clean dried purified amino
> >acids in very specific proportions do not occur "naturally" and you have to rig
> >the experiment and then make up stories after the fact to make those conditions
> >conform to some imaginary earth conditions.
> Where did the presentation say anything about "clean, dried, purified
> amino acids in specific proportions?
the initial part of the experiment is carried out by heating dried amino acids in a melt,
because the reaction doesn't go in aqueous solution. there's your "dried" part;
and as he says;
"We learned that we could avoid the decomposition if we included in the mixture to be heated
a sufficient proportion of one or both of two amino acids: aspartic acid and/or glutamic acid."
a "sufficient proportion"
in other words, he has to rig the proportions to get a favorable result and in this case,
the proportions do not match the proportions of the miller-urey and herrera type experiments.
fails the "natural" test.
> There was no "rigging of the experiment".
> At that point, the research was into protein formation, not the origin
> of life.
> And simply put, it was just heat and any old mixture of amino acids as
> long as it included aspartic acid and/or glutamic acid.
not quite, not just =included= aspartic and/or glutamic but had those amino acids
in =excess= because they melt and form the solvent system where the reaction goes
because it doesn't go in aqueous solution.
not natural abundances in line with the electrical discharge experiments.
> > they have unnatural kinked and branched chains and are not
> >linear and they always form a racemic mixture of D and L forms where living organisms
> >as we know all always have only the L form. if that process always results in a
> >racemic mixture of D and L, even starting with all L amino acids, and all subsequent
> >actual cells "evolved" from them, we should not see the preference for L forms in the
> >living cell structure, which we do see. the so-called proto-cells are racemates, and
> >must be racemates by virtue of the process itself and cannot and do not purify their
> >chirality before forming the microspheres but that real organisms evolved from these
> >majically lose this in favor of homochirality. if those microspheres which are racemates
> >started inventing nucleic acids based on themselves, we should see racemic nucleic acids
> >but we don't. you may be able to show me how a mixture of racemic amino acids can be
> >chirally purified, but the process itself of heating destroys
> >this purity in favor of the racemic mixture in the microsphere again.
> WHY DO YOU EXPECT MODERN FORMS OF LIVING ORGANISMS?
the DL chirality problem is not trivial
=if= the rest of teh bit was "natural" which it isn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 01:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <0qnsdbl1vgu4cgnbn1628lb28lj21drkoj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2071382 |
On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 21:34:00 -0500, Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> wrote: >Christopher A. Lee wrote: > >> Moses wrote: > >> >> >> You looked at it, and perhaps skimmed it. But you didn't read it. > >> >> >> They metabolised and reproduced. > > >> >> >that flavins may be found in the bubbles and flavins have metabolic activities in living cells, >> >> >does not suggest that these bubbles are using flavins to feed themselves. they are not. these > >> >> What "bubbles" were you lying about? > >> >the proteinoid microspheres are bubbles, > >> READ THE PRESENTATION, AND LOOK AT THE MICRO-PHOTOGRAPHS. Clearly, you didn't. >there's another glaring problem with the relevance of the Fox work. not that it isn't interesting work, but > >the miller-urey type experiments produces the amino acids glycine and alanine in approximately 2% yield >[1.05%] and [0.75%] respectively, depending on the amount of carbon supplied as methane. More complex >amino acids such as glutamic acid and leucine are produced in smaller amounts about 0.026% of the total So frikking what? Fox used a different method of amino acid formation than Miller and Urey. He produced amino acids using heat and silica sand as a catalyst, not an electrical discharge. Modern abiogenesis researchers consider this a more likely way in the pre-biotic world. The current favourite theory is that it happened around undersea thermal vents, The sea bed provides the sand and the vents provide the heat. With currents and tides contributing my moving the intermediate products between zones having different temperatures, etc. And modern abiogenesis researchers still use protocells. Why are you so desperate to try and discredit this work? None of it will un-happen. Nor will the results of research in the decades since, Others, like the Nobel Prize winners Linus Pauling, Albert Szent Gyorgy and Jack Szostak have taken this much further. Which they couldn't have done without Fox's ground breaking work. The only reasons I use this particular presentation which you feel qualified to dispute, are because it is simple to read, it is intended for the layman and it contains pretty pictures. But you can't even read it for anything resembling comprehension. >that's an 80 to 1 abundance of glycine and alanine to the rest, which includes glutamic >the actual proportions may be even greater. So what? >[from harbinger Fox note] speaking of the decomposition which occurs when you heat amino acids > >\\\\ >"We learned that we could avoid the decomposition if we included in the mixture to be heated >a sufficient proportion of one or both of two amino acids: aspartic acid and/or glutamic acid." /lysine also works >\\\ And? >this part of the experiment cannot be carried out in aqueous solution because the production >of water in the polymerization process makes the reaction non-spontaneous > >[amino acid] + [amino acid] <===> [amino acid polymer] + water > free energy favors reactants Even if that were true, so what? >so, the reason for the excessive proportions of those particular acids is that, aspartic lysine glutamic acids >form melts when heated, and the melts constitute the solvent system where the other amino acids may form co-polymers >with the solvent system. meaning when you form a melt with aspartic lysine or glutamic acids you can then dope in >other amino acids and the reaction proceeds in a 'non-aqueous' environment/solvent system. > >glycine alanine and all the rest do not form melts. And? >trouble here is that the "natural" abundance of amino acids formed by the electrical discharge experiments >show a glaring =poverty= of the amino acids that form melts, and which must be employed in =excess= proportion >in the Fox experiment. THAT'S NOT HOW HE GOT THE AMINO ACIDS, imbecile. >so, our "experimenter" must step in and alter the natural abundance to get his experiment to proceed. No. moron. Fox had thermal proteins _before_ he and his team discovered that the mixture required aspartic and/or glutamic acid. This was the result of investigating why some of the mixtures _didn't_ produce thermal proteins while others did. Keep reading that until it sinks in. Move your lips if it makes it any easier to follow. >these proportions are not "natural" as shown from the electrical discharge experiments and so, >nullify the Fox experiment as not a naturalistic reproduction of pre-biotic chemistry. Even if that were true, so what? What you don't seem to grasp, is that this does not actually matter. Because three billion years after the earliest life appeared, we don't know exactly what the pre-biotic chemistry was, we can only guess. This research does, however, show that life can form naturally. >> >and another trouble is, the starting materials which are clean dried purified amino >> >acids in very specific proportions do not occur "naturally" and you have to rig >> >the experiment and then make up stories after the fact to make those conditions >> >conform to some imaginary earth conditions. > >> Where did the presentation say anything about "clean, dried, purified >> amino acids in specific proportions? > >the initial part of the experiment is carried out by heating dried amino acids in a melt, >because the reaction doesn't go in aqueous solution. there's your "dried" part; Where did the presentation say that? Hint: it didn't. >and as he says; > >"We learned that we could avoid the decomposition if we included in the mixture to be heated >a sufficient proportion of one or both of two amino acids: aspartic acid and/or glutamic acid." > >a "sufficient proportion" And? >in other words, he has to rig the proportions to get a favorable result and in this case, >the proportions do not match the proportions of the miller-urey and herrera type experiments. No, lying moron. He already had thermal proteins _before_ he investigated why some mixtures worked and others didn't. He didn't need to "rig" anything. This was "what happens if we do this" science, not "let's try to get this result". Why do you imagine experiments like Herrera's, Miller's and Urey's, and Fox's always yielded exactly the same mixture in exactly the same proportions? >fails the "natural" test. Even if that were true, so what? >> There was no "rigging of the experiment". > >> At that point, the research was into protein formation, not the origin >> of life. > >> And simply put, it was just heat and any old mixture of amino acids as >> long as it included aspartic acid and/or glutamic acid. > >not quite, not just =included= aspartic and/or glutamic but had those amino acids >in =excess= because they melt and form the solvent system where the reaction goes > because it doesn't go in aqueous solution. Except that they already had thermal proteins, and were investigating why some mixtures failed. You got this bullshit from Duane Gish, at the ICR web site, didn't you? Did you and Gish imagine that Fox was lying about his work and the results, even though students in the field repeat it as routine course work and modern abiogenesis researchers get their protocells similarly but have taken things much further to the extent that Jack Szostak won a Nobel Prize for his work? >not natural abundances in line with the electrical discharge experiments. Again, that's not how Fox obtained the amino acids. So why do you keep bringing it up? I know... That's what Gish said. However, amino acids have been shown to form under a wide variety of natural conditions, and they've even been seen in interstellar dust clouds. >> > they have unnatural kinked and branched chains and are not >> >linear and they always form a racemic mixture of D and L forms where living organisms >> >as we know all always have only the L form. if that process always results in a >> >racemic mixture of D and L, even starting with all L amino acids, and all subsequent >> >actual cells "evolved" from them, we should not see the preference for L forms in the >> >living cell structure, which we do see. the so-called proto-cells are racemates, and >> >must be racemates by virtue of the process itself and cannot and do not purify their >> >chirality before forming the microspheres but that real organisms evolved from these >> >majically lose this in favor of homochirality. if those microspheres which are racemates >> >started inventing nucleic acids based on themselves, we should see racemic nucleic acids >> >but we don't. you may be able to show me how a mixture of racemic amino acids can be >> >chirally purified, but the process itself of heating destroys >> >this purity in favor of the racemic mixture in the microsphere again. > >> WHY DO YOU EXPECT MODERN FORMS OF LIVING ORGANISMS? > >the DL chirality problem is not trivial Of course it is, imbecile. Nobody is insisting that it actually happened this way more than three billion years ago. That would take a time machine. This is just the earliest way the transition from non-life to extremely simple life was been demonstrated in the lab, by duplicating natural processes. Herrera's work involved human "design", Fox's didn't. And nobody is saying that these experiments resulted in modern life. But creationists try to discredit it because it shows that a god isn't required. They go about it completely the wrong way, because the results won't un-happen. So they (creationists) have failed before they even started. >=if= the rest of teh bit was "natural" which it isn't. Because some ignorant creationist who is trying to discredit this ground-breaking and foundational work. says so? This is what I don't understand about the creationist mentality. They so desperately need to try and discredit the results of objective scientific research that they lie about and distort the work - even though the demonstrated results won't un-happen. Which is one reason the scientific community holds them in such contempt. Instead of reading the original researcher's own presentation on the subject and discussing it himself, the anonymous coward went to an Institute for Creation "Research" web page and repeated the lies he found there, written by a somebody who himself didn't read the original researcher apart from skimming through to try and find something to discredit it. And who so misrepresented it as to amount to outright, deliberately lying about it. He repeated these lies as if they were his own, eg "bubbles", without acknowledging his source. When if either he or Gish had actually bothered to read it, they were clearly much more than that. But then he's a creationist, confirming that it is impossible to be an honest one. Just like the creationist whose lies he repeated, Duane Gish. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 03:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <56DE89AD.1DF3@here.not-valid-address> |
| In reply to | #2071439 |
Christopher A. Lee wrote: > > On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 21:34:00 -0500, Moses > <noone@here.not-valid-address> wrote: > > >Christopher A. Lee wrote: > > > >> Moses wrote: > > > >> >> >> You looked at it, and perhaps skimmed it. But you didn't read it. > > > >> >> >> They metabolised and reproduced. > > > > > >> >> >that flavins may be found in the bubbles and flavins have metabolic activities in living cells, > >> >> >does not suggest that these bubbles are using flavins to feed themselves. they are not. these > > > >> >> What "bubbles" were you lying about? > > > >> >the proteinoid microspheres are bubbles, > > > >> READ THE PRESENTATION, AND LOOK AT THE MICRO-PHOTOGRAPHS. > > Clearly, you didn't. > >there's another glaring problem with the relevance of the Fox work. not that it isn't interesting work, but > >the miller-urey type experiments produces the amino acids glycine and alanine in approximately 2% yield > >[1.05%] and [0.75%] respectively, depending on the amount of carbon supplied as methane. More complex > >amino acids such as glutamic acid and leucine are produced in smaller amounts about 0.026% of the total > So frikking what? > Fox used a different method of amino acid formation than Miller and > Urey. > He produced amino acids using heat and silica sand as a catalyst, not > an electrical discharge. and the proportions are generally identical, the reason being that it is in the nature of the products themselves and not the exact method for obtaining them. glycine and alanine simply form more readily due to their structures, and the others, including glutamic and aspartic form in much smaller proportions by these methods. this is part of the "non-randomness" of the chemistry. you may like to peruse this instead of your harbinger presentation Molecular Evolution and Protobiology By Matsuno, Dose, Harada and Rohlfing and that's Kaoru Harada who worked with Fox, he gives a fairly detailed first hand account of the studies in question. > Modern abiogenesis researchers consider this a more likely way in the > pre-biotic world. The current favourite theory is that it happened > around undersea thermal vents, The sea bed provides the sand and the > vents provide the heat. With currents and tides contributing my moving > the intermediate products between zones having different temperatures, > etc. thermal vents are not 1000 C more about 350 C but Stability of Biomolecules at High Temperatures A thermophilic origin of life is not a new idea. It was first suggested by Harvey [138], who argued that the first life forms were het- erotrophic thermophiles that had originated in hot springs such as those found in Yellowstone Park. As underlined by Harvey, the one advantage of high temperatures is that the chemical reactions could go faster and the primitive enzymes could have been less efficient. However, high temperatures are destructive to organic compounds. Hence, the price paid is loss of biochemical compounds to decomposition. Although some progress has been made in synthesizing small molecules under hydrothermal vent type conditions, the larger trend for biomolecules at high-temperature conditions is decomposition. As has been demonstrated by various authors, most biological molecules have half-lives to hydrolysis on the order of minutes to seconds at the high temperatures associated with hydrothermal vents. As noted above, ribose and other sugars are very thermolabile compounds [79]. The stability of ribose and other sugars is problematic, but pyrimidines and purines, and many amino acids, are nearly as labile. At 100 °C the half-life for deamination of cytosine is 21 days, and 204 days for adenine [139,140]. Some amino acids are stable, for example, alanine with a half-life for decarboxylation of approximately 19,000 years at 100 °C, but serine decarboxylates to ethanolamine with a half-life of 320 days [141]. White [142] measured the decomposition of various com- pounds at 250 °C and pH 7 and found half-lives of amino acids from 7.5 s to 278 min, half-lives for peptide bonds from <1min to 11.8 min, half-lives for glycoside cleavage in nucleosides from <1s to 1.3 min, decomposition of nucleobases from 15 to 57min, and half-lives for phosphate esters from 2.3 to 420 min. It should be borne in mind that the half-lives for polymers would be even shorter as there are so many potential breakage points in a polymer. Thus, while the vents may serve as synthesis sites for simpler compounds such as acetate or more refractory organic compounds such as fatty acids, it is unlikely they played a major role in synthesizing most biochemicals or their polymers. 350°C submarine vents do not seem to presently synthesize organic compounds, more likely they decompose them in a time span ranging from seconds to a few hours. Thus, the origin of life in the vents is improbable. This does not imply that the hydrothermal springs were a negligible factor on the primitive Earth. If the mineral assemblages were sufficiently reducing, the rocks near the vents may have been a source of atmospheric CH4 or H2. As stated earlier, the concentra- tions of biomolecules which could have accumulated on the primitive Earth is governed largely by the rates of production and the rates of destruction. Submarine hydrothermal vents would have also been important in the destruction rather than in the synthesis of organic compounds, thus fixing the upper limit for the organic compound concentration in the primitive oceans. Although it is presently not possible to state which compounds were essential for the origin of life, it does seem possible to preclude certain environments if even fairly simple organic compounds were involved [143]. ////// 79. Larralde, R., M. Robertson and S. Miller. Rates of decomposition of ribose and other sugars: implications for chemical evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 92:8158–60, 1995. 138. Harvey, R. Enzymes of thermal algae. Science, 60:481–2, 1924. 139. Garrett, E. and J. Tsau. Solvolyses of cytosine and cytidine. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 61(7):1052–61, 1972. 140. Shapiro, R. The prebiotic role of adenine: a critical analysis. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 25:83–98, 1995. 141. Vallentyne, J. Biogeochemistry of organic matter. II. Thermal reaction kinetics and transformation products of amino compounds. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 28:157–88, 1964. 142. White, R. Hydrolytic stability of biomolecules at high temperatures and its implication for life at 250° C. Nature, 310(5976):430–2, 1984. 143. Cleaves, H. and J. Chalmers. Extremophiles may be irrelevant to the origin of life. Astrobiology, 4(1):1–9, 2004. 144. Oró, J. Comets and the formation of biochemical compounds on the primitive Earth. Nature, 190:442–3, 1961. ///// > And modern abiogenesis researchers still use protocells. you can use whatever you like, but the Fox experiment is not "natural" for the reasons i have outlined. and you want amino acids produced in water to majically be ejected from the water on to some hot surface where they can dry out and form melts in the necessary proportions which are not teh proportions found by "natrualistic" experiments. > >that's an 80 to 1 abundance of glycine and alanine to the rest, which includes glutamic > >the actual proportions may be even greater. > So what? see Harada; the melts must be in proportions that favor glutamic and aspartic acid because those are the ones that actually melt. but they are also formed "naturally" in much -smaller- amounts. barring a miracle, there is no natural tendency for the proportions to pan out as teh Fox experiment would dictate. > >[from harbinger Fox note] speaking of the decomposition which occurs when you heat amino acids > > > >\\\\ > >"We learned that we could avoid the decomposition if we included in the mixture to be heated > >a sufficient proportion of one or both of two amino acids: aspartic acid and/or glutamic acid." /lysine also works > >\\\ > And? and you get nothing unless glutamic or aspartic or lysine are present in great excess of all the others and this is not found in the methods which produce them in the first place. not natural. > >this part of the experiment cannot be carried out in aqueous solution because the production > >of water in the polymerization process makes the reaction non-spontaneous > > > >[amino acid] + [amino acid] <===> [amino acid polymer] + water > > free energy favors reactants > Even if that were true, so what? it is true, that's -why- they use the melts, maybe you should try looking at something else -besides- your "simplistic"[your words] presentation at harbinger. these reactions do -not- proceed in aqueous solution hot or cold. > >so, the reason for the excessive proportions of those particular acids is that, aspartic lysine glutamic acids > >form melts when heated, and the melts constitute the solvent system where the other amino acids may form co-polymers > >with the solvent system. meaning when you form a melt with aspartic lysine or glutamic acids you can then dope in > >other amino acids and the reaction proceeds in a 'non-aqueous' environment/solvent system. > >glycine alanine and all the rest do not form melts. > And? and if you do Not have excessive amounts of glutamic or aspartic you do Not get the melts which are the non-aqueous solvent system. > >trouble here is that the "natural" abundance of amino acids formed by the electrical discharge experiments > >show a glaring =poverty= of the amino acids that form melts, and which must be employed in =excess= proportion > >in the Fox experiment. > THAT'S NOT HOW HE GOT THE AMINO ACIDS, imbecile. look it up, you get essentially the same proportions. mostly alanine and glycine and much more trace proportions of glutamic and aspartic and all the rest. they a few more amino acids apparently, but the major projucts and major proportions didn't change. > >so, our "experimenter" must step in and alter the natural abundance to get his experiment to proceed. > Fox had thermal proteins _before_ he and his team discovered that the > mixture required aspartic and/or glutamic acid. This was the result of > investigating why some of the mixtures _didn't_ produce thermal > proteins while others did. most didn't because most amino acids do not form melts. the ones that reacted were teh ones that formed melts. and they did Not just take a raw sample from the production experiments and start heating it up, they did experiments that produced amino acids and then did separate experiments in heating dried amino acids that they had refined and sorted out. > >these proportions are not "natural" as shown from the electrical discharge experiments and so, > >nullify the Fox experiment as not a naturalistic reproduction of pre-biotic chemistry. > Even if that were true, so what? it is true, the proportions are altered to fit the necessities of the second experiment. > What you don't seem to grasp, is that this does not actually matter. > Because three billion years after the earliest life appeared, we don't > know exactly what the pre-biotic chemistry was, we can only guess. so now we're back to "i don't know but i insist this happened anyway cuz if suits my fantasies" routine > This research does, however, show that life can form naturally. does not, it shows how an experimenter can take dried amino acids and manipulate the proportions to such an extent that a reaction will occur that =probably= will not take place under purely "natural" conditions. see, i said "probably" because it's possible some unseen hand interfered just like your experimenter > >> >and another trouble is, the starting materials which are clean dried purified amino > >> >acids in very specific proportions do not occur "naturally" and you have to rig > >> >the experiment and then make up stories after the fact to make those conditions > >> >conform to some imaginary earth conditions. > >> Where did the presentation say anything about "clean, dried, purified > >> amino acids in specific proportions? > >the initial part of the experiment is carried out by heating dried amino acids in a melt, > >because the reaction doesn't go in aqueous solution. there's your "dried" part; > Where did the presentation say that? if we must confine ourselves to that "simplistic" presentation, then you do not get to insinuate that these bubbles manipulated nucleic acids because that is nowhere to be found in your simplistic presentation. > Hint: it didn't. see Kaoru Harada book, he's a bit more detailed. > >and as he says; > >"We learned that we could avoid the decomposition if we included in the mixture to be heated > >a sufficient proportion of one or both of two amino acids: aspartic acid and/or glutamic acid." > >a "sufficient proportion" > And? and they set the experiment up using unnatural proportions > >in other words, he has to rig the proportions to get a favorable result and in this case, > >the proportions do not match the proportions of the miller-urey and herrera type experiments. > He already had thermal proteins _before_ he investigated why some > mixtures worked and others didn't. > Why do you imagine experiments like Herrera's, Miller's and Urey's, > and Fox's always yielded exactly the same mixture in exactly the same > proportions? because it is the ease of formation of some amino acids over the others as they are Not "random" some of the amino acids form more readily than others because of =their= structures alanine and glycine are in the "most readily formed" category and aspartic and glutamic are in teh "much less readily formed category but, in the -second- part, the heating of the dried acids, these natural abundances are reversed and altered to fit. a nifty bit of gesticulation and prestidigitation, to be sure, but "not natural" to also be certain. > >fails the "natural" test. > Even if that were true, so what? be=cause= these experiments -claim- to be trying to mimic the naturally occuring event sequences. > Nobody is insisting that it actually happened this way more than three > billion years ago. That would take a time machine. it certainly isn't a "natural" representation as it would claim to be. it's not just the preporturous notion that amino acids will be formed in water and be in some sort of "soup" can, and then, be vomited up onto the dry land and have the water driven off in a cool place so as not to destroy the molecules, and then, the neatly dried acids, sit and wait for the sun to bake them into a melt wherupon -rain- water, hot rain water, that must have a certain ionic strength as found in -sea water- washes out the proteinoids forming microspheres but yet manages to also provide this wonderful "soup" can of "nutrients" and phosphates and ATP and they all lived happily ever after. remember to start your stories with "once upon a time" at least themn i'll be able to eat my milk and cookies and fall asleep to the neat bedtime stories.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 04:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <7b6tdblqcjri8hc9lsqlqkr364ka8ad926@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2071473 |
On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 03:13:33 -0500, Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> wrote: >Christopher A. Lee wrote: >> >> On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 21:34:00 -0500, Moses >> <noone@here.not-valid-address> wrote: >> >> >Christopher A. Lee wrote: >> > >> >> Moses wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> You looked at it, and perhaps skimmed it. But you didn't read it. >> > >> >> >> >> They metabolised and reproduced. >> > >> > >> >> >> >that flavins may be found in the bubbles and flavins have metabolic activities in living cells, >> >> >> >does not suggest that these bubbles are using flavins to feed themselves. they are not. these >> > >> >> >> What "bubbles" were you lying about? >> > >> >> >the proteinoid microspheres are bubbles, >> > >> >> READ THE PRESENTATION, AND LOOK AT THE MICRO-PHOTOGRAPHS. >> >> Clearly, you didn't. > >> >there's another glaring problem with the relevance of the Fox work. not that it isn't interesting work, but > >> >the miller-urey type experiments produces the amino acids glycine and alanine in approximately 2% yield >> >[1.05%] and [0.75%] respectively, depending on the amount of carbon supplied as methane. More complex >> >amino acids such as glutamic acid and leucine are produced in smaller amounts about 0.026% of the total > >> So frikking what? > >> Fox used a different method of amino acid formation than Miller and >> Urey. > >> He produced amino acids using heat and silica sand as a catalyst, not >> an electrical discharge. > > >and the proportions are generally identical, the reason being that it is in the nature of the products themselves >and not the exact method for obtaining them. glycine and alanine simply form more readily due to their structures, >and the others, including glutamic and aspartic form in much smaller proportions by these methods. >this is part of the "non-randomness" of the chemistry. > >you may like to peruse this instead of your harbinger presentation You may want to address Fox's presentation instead of trying to discredit it by repeating lies you got from a creationist web page. >Molecular Evolution and Protobiology >By Matsuno, Dose, Harada and Rohlfing > >and that's Kaoru Harada who worked with Fox, he gives a fairly detailed first hand account of the studies in question. SO FUCKING WHAT? Nobody insists that the way Harada and Fox demonstrated, actually happened - that would take a time machine. >> Modern abiogenesis researchers consider this a more likely way in the >> pre-biotic world. The current favourite theory is that it happened >> around undersea thermal vents, The sea bed provides the sand and the >> vents provide the heat. With currents and tides contributing my moving >> the intermediate products between zones having different temperatures, >> etc. > >thermal vents are not 1000 C more about 350 C but [snip red herring because NOBODY INSISTS IT HAPPENED THAT WAY, that would take a time machine] Both the Miller/Urey and Fox experiments show possible routes by which the components necessary for life could have been formed, not that it happened exactly that way three billion years ago. >> And modern abiogenesis researchers still use protocells. > >you can use whatever you like, but the Fox experiment is not "natural" for the reasons i have outlined. No, liar - they duplicated natural processes. >and you want amino acids produced in water to majically be ejected from the water >on to some hot surface where they can dry out and form melts in the necessary >proportions which are not teh proportions found by "natrualistic" experiments. No, liar. That is Duane Gish's misrepresentation. Although elsewhere, Fox describes how the protein spheroids have been found in volcanic ash. >> >that's an 80 to 1 abundance of glycine and alanine to the rest, which includes glutamic >> >the actual proportions may be even greater. > >> So what? > >see Harada; the melts must be in proportions that favor glutamic and aspartic acid because those are the ones that actually melt. >but they are also formed "naturally" in much -smaller- amounts. barring a miracle, there is no natural tendency for the proportions > to pan out as teh Fox experiment would dictate. Unless you give the actual cite, in the surrounding context, I have no reason to believe you because of all your previous lies. It's a dishonestly mined quote, taken from the original context, to make it appear as if Harada disagreed with the original results. Did you miss the bit where Fox and his team had already produced thermal proteins, and that they determined that aspartic acid and glutamic acid were required by investigating the cases which didn't produce the thermal proteins? Again, THESE RESULTS WON'T UN-HAPPEN. Face it, you lied that the protocells were mere bubbles. Have you ever seen bubbles reproducing like this micro-photograph which was in the presentation, showing that the protocells budded like yeasts... http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox6.jpg Even without your other "mistakes", this demonstrated that you hadn't bothered to read the presentation yourself. >> >[from harbinger Fox note] speaking of the decomposition which occurs when you heat amino acids >> > >> >\\\\ >> >"We learned that we could avoid the decomposition if we included in the mixture to be heated >> >a sufficient proportion of one or both of two amino acids: aspartic acid and/or glutamic acid." /lysine also works >> >\\\ > >> And? > >and you get nothing unless glutamic or aspartic or lysine are present in great excess of all the others >and this is not found in the methods which produce them in the first place. WHICH WAS DISCOVERED WHEN SOME OF THE MIXTURES WORKED AND OTHERS DIDN'T. Please try to keep up. >not natural. BY DUPLICATING NATURAL PROCESSES. >> >this part of the experiment cannot be carried out in aqueous solution because the production >> >of water in the polymerization process makes the reaction non-spontaneous >> > >> >[amino acid] + [amino acid] <===> [amino acid polymer] + water >> > free energy favors reactants > >> Even if that were true, so what? > >it is true, that's -why- they use the melts, maybe you should try looking at something else > -besides- your "simplistic"[your words] presentation at harbinger. these reactions do -not- >proceed in aqueous solution hot or cold. So are you accusing the researcher of this groundbreaking work, without which subsequent abiogenesis researchers would not have had the results they did and which earned Nobel prizes, of lying? >> >so, the reason for the excessive proportions of those particular acids is that, aspartic lysine glutamic acids >> >form melts when heated, and the melts constitute the solvent system where the other amino acids may form co-polymers >> >with the solvent system. meaning when you form a melt with aspartic lysine or glutamic acids you can then dope in >> >other amino acids and the reaction proceeds in a 'non-aqueous' environment/solvent system. > >> >glycine alanine and all the rest do not form melts. > >> And? > >and if you do Not have excessive amounts of glutamic or aspartic you do Not get the melts which are the non-aqueous solvent system. THEY HAD ALREADY PRODUCED THERMAL PROTEINS, AND ONLY FOUND OUT ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR ASPARTIC AND/OR GLUTAMIC ACID BY INVESTIGATING THE AMINO ACID MIXES THAT FAILED. Which word was too long for you to understand? >> >trouble here is that the "natural" abundance of amino acids formed by the electrical discharge experiments >> >show a glaring =poverty= of the amino acids that form melts, and which must be employed in =excess= proportion >> >in the Fox experiment. > >> THAT'S NOT HOW HE GOT THE AMINO ACIDS, imbecile. > >look it up, you get essentially the same proportions. Sigh. Did YOU look it up, or did you get it from ICR page with Duane Gish's lies? And do YOU understand that even the original Miller/Urey experiment produced peptide chains? Their original results were sealed in phials, and subjected to modern, more sophisticated analysis using equipment that wasn't around in the 1950s? At what point do peptide chains become proteins? >mostly alanine and glycine and much more trace proportions of glutamic and aspartic and all the rest. >they a few more amino acids apparently, but the major projucts and major proportions didn't change. So Fox's results didn't happen? And the students don't reproduce them in routine course work? And Nobel Prize winning researchers into abiogenesis don't use lab-formed protocells? >> >so, our "experimenter" must step in and alter the natural abundance to get his experiment to proceed. > >> Fox had thermal proteins _before_ he and his team discovered that the >> mixture required aspartic and/or glutamic acid. This was the result of >> investigating why some of the mixtures _didn't_ produce thermal >> proteins while others did. > >most didn't because most amino acids do not form melts. the ones that reacted were teh ones that formed melts. >and they did Not just take a raw sample from the production experiments and start heating it up, they did experiments that produced amino acids >and then did separate experiments in heating dried amino acids that they had refined and sorted out. Is "most" the same as "all", imbecile? No matter much bullshit you spout, that you got from a lying leading creationist, the results actually happened. Once you have cases that work, you don't keep repeating the failed cases. >> >these proportions are not "natural" as shown from the electrical discharge experiments and so, >> >nullify the Fox experiment as not a naturalistic reproduction of pre-biotic chemistry. > >> Even if that were true, so what? > >it is true, the proportions are altered to fit the necessities of the second experiment. Only in the sense that they had discovered which amino acid mixtures formed thermal proteins, and which didn't. Again - THEY DIDN'T EXPECT THE PROTOCELLS THE FIRST TIME THEY WERE FORMED. >> What you don't seem to grasp, is that this does not actually matter. >> Because three billion years after the earliest life appeared, we don't >> know exactly what the pre-biotic chemistry was, we can only guess. > >so now we're back to "i don't know but i insist this happened anyway >cuz if suits my fantasies" routine What "i don't know but i insist this happened anyway cuz if suits my fantasies" routine are you lying about, typically dishonest, proven serially lying creationist? Are you pretending that these experimental results never actually happened? You know perfectly well, that at the time they were only researching abiotic protein formation. And that the experiments were refined each time things worked, by investigating the cases that didn't. The discovery of protocells came _after_ all this. >> This research does, however, show that life can form naturally. > >does not, it shows how an experimenter can take dried amino acids and manipulate the proportions to such an extent >that a reaction will occur that =probably= will not take place under purely "natural" conditions. Liar. >see, i said "probably" because it's possible some unseen hand interfered just like your experimenter SO DEMONSTRATE THIS IMAGINARY "UNSEEN HAND FOR WHICH THERE IS NO REASON EVEN TO POSIT IT, APART FROM YOUR PRE-EXISTING RELIGIOUS BELIEF/ >> >> >and another trouble is, the starting materials which are clean dried purified amino >> >> >acids in very specific proportions do not occur "naturally" and you have to rig >> >> >the experiment and then make up stories after the fact to make those conditions >> >> >conform to some imaginary earth conditions. > >> >> Where did the presentation say anything about "clean, dried, purified >> >> amino acids in specific proportions? > >> >the initial part of the experiment is carried out by heating dried amino acids in a melt, >> >because the reaction doesn't go in aqueous solution. there's your "dried" part; > >> Where did the presentation say that? > >if we must confine ourselves to that "simplistic" presentation, then you do >not get to insinuate that these bubbles manipulated nucleic acids >because that is nowhere to be found in your simplistic presentation. WHAT FUCKING "BUBBLES", PROVEN SERIAL LIAR? The presentation showed that the protocells reproduced by budding, like yeasts - and there was even a micro-photograph. Bubbles don't split into two that way. You disn't even read the presentation - you simply repeated what you would have known were lies if you had bothered to read it, that came from an ICR web page full of Duane Gish's misrepresentations, distortions and outright lies. >> Hint: it didn't. > >see Kaoru Harada book, he's a bit more detailed. I very much doubt Harada says the original results didn't happen, or that they were fudged. Elsewhere, he even says that the descendants of the lab-formed protocells evolved nucleic acids. You're misrepresenting him. It doesn't actually matter whether or not it happened exactly the same way three billion years ago. Did you bother to read the stuff I copied from Fox's response to Slaithe, showing where he showed the latter had misunderstood? Which creationist lie-site did you copy the mined quote as though Fox agreed with him? >> >and as he says; > >> >"We learned that we could avoid the decomposition if we included in the mixture to be heated >> >a sufficient proportion of one or both of two amino acids: aspartic acid and/or glutamic acid." > >> >a "sufficient proportion" > >> And? > >and they set the experiment up using unnatural proportions No, liar - they already had thermal proteins, but investigated the cases which failed. Once they had done that, they eliminated those because they weren't interested in them. >> >in other words, he has to rig the proportions to get a favorable result and in this case, >> >the proportions do not match the proportions of the miller-urey and herrera type experiments. > > >> He already had thermal proteins _before_ he investigated why some >> mixtures worked and others didn't. Well, moron? Why can't you acknowledge this? It's been pointed out over and over again, every time you have repeated this lie-by-omission? >> Why do you imagine experiments like Herrera's, Miller's and Urey's, >> and Fox's always yielded exactly the same mixture in exactly the same >> proportions? > >because it is the ease of formation of some amino acids over the others as they are Not "random" some of > the amino acids form more readily than others because of =their= structures alanine and glycine are in >the "most readily formed" category and aspartic and glutamic are in teh "much less readily formed category >but, in the -second- part, the heating of the dried acids, these natural abundances are reversed and altered to fit. >a nifty bit of gesticulation and prestidigitation, to be sure, but "not natural" to also be certain. And? > >> >fails the "natural" test. > >> Even if that were true, so what? > >be=cause= these experiments -claim- to be trying to mimic the naturally occuring event sequences. By duplicating natural processes. And once again, NOBODY CLAIMS IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED EXACTLY THAT WAY, because nobody has access to a time machine. >> Nobody is insisting that it actually happened this way more than three >> billion years ago. That would take a time machine. > > it certainly isn't a "natural" representation as it would claim to be. Even though the processes used duplicated natural ones? >it's not just the preporturous notion that amino acids will be formed in water and be in some sort of "soup" can, >and then, be vomited up onto the dry land and have the water driven off in a cool place so as not to destroy >the molecules, and then, the neatly dried acids, sit and wait for the sun to bake them into a melt wherupon >-rain- water, hot rain water, that must have a certain ionic strength as found in -sea water- washes out >the proteinoids forming microspheres but yet manages to also provide this wonderful "soup" can of "nutrients" > and phosphates and ATP and they all lived happily ever after. More deliberate distortion. Are you accusing the original researcher (Fox) and his Nobel Prize winning successors of lying? >remember to start your stories with "once upon a time" Why not at least _try_ to show some honesty? >at least themn i'll be able to eat my milk and cookies and fall >asleep to the neat bedtime stories. Did you seriously imagine that deleting the following without comment, would do anything except confirm it? Nobody is insisting that it actually happened this way more than three billion years ago. That would take a time machine. This is just the earliest way the transition from non-life to extremely simple life was been demonstrated in the lab, by duplicating natural processes. Herrera's work involved human "design", Fox's didn't. And nobody is saying that these experiments resulted in modern life. But creationists try to discredit it because it shows that a god isn't required. They go about it completely the wrong way, because the results won't un-happen. So they (creationists) have failed before they even started. >=if= the rest of teh bit was "natural" which it isn't. Because some ignorant creationist who is trying to discredit this ground-breaking and foundational work. says so? This is what I don't understand about the creationist mentality. They so desperately need to try and discredit the results of objective scientific research that they lie about and distort the work - even though the demonstrated results won't un-happen. Which is one reason the scientific community holds them in such contempt. Instead of reading the original researcher's own presentation on the subject and discussing it himself, the anonymous coward went to an Institute for Creation "Research" web page and repeated the lies he found there, written by a somebody who himself didn't read the original researcher apart from skimming through to try and find something to discredit it. And who so misrepresented it as to amount to outright, deliberately lying about it. He repeated these lies as if they were his own, eg "bubbles", without acknowledging his source. When if either he or Gish had actually bothered to read it, they were clearly much more than that. But then he's a creationist, confirming that it is impossible to be an honest one. Just like the creationist whose lies he repeated, Duane Gish. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 06:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <56DEB33F.222@here.not-valid-address> |
| In reply to | #2071476 |
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 03:13:33 -0500, Moses
> <noone@here.not-valid-address> wrote:
>
> >Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 21:34:00 -0500, Moses
> >> <noone@here.not-valid-address> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Moses wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >> >> You looked at it, and perhaps skimmed it. But you didn't read it.
> >> >
> >> >> >> >> They metabolised and reproduced.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >> >that flavins may be found in the bubbles and flavins have metabolic activities in living cells,
> >> >> >> >does not suggest that these bubbles are using flavins to feed themselves. they are not. these
> >> >
> >> >> >> What "bubbles" were you lying about?
> >> >
> >> >> >the proteinoid microspheres are bubbles,
> >> >
> >> >> READ THE PRESENTATION, AND LOOK AT THE MICRO-PHOTOGRAPHS.
> >>
> >> Clearly, you didn't.
> >
> >> >there's another glaring problem with the relevance of the Fox work. not that it isn't interesting work, but
> >
> >> >the miller-urey type experiments produces the amino acids glycine and alanine in approximately 2% yield
> >> >[1.05%] and [0.75%] respectively, depending on the amount of carbon supplied as methane. More complex
> >> >amino acids such as glutamic acid and leucine are produced in smaller amounts about 0.026% of the total
> >
> >> So frikking what?
> >
> >> Fox used a different method of amino acid formation than Miller and
> >> Urey.
> >
> >> He produced amino acids using heat and silica sand as a catalyst, not
> >> an electrical discharge.
> >
> >
> >and the proportions are generally identical, the reason being that it is in the nature of the products themselves
> >and not the exact method for obtaining them. glycine and alanine simply form more readily due to their structures,
> >and the others, including glutamic and aspartic form in much smaller proportions by these methods.
> >this is part of the "non-randomness" of the chemistry.
> >
> >you may like to peruse this instead of your harbinger presentation
>
> You may want to address Fox's presentation instead of trying to
> discredit it by repeating lies you got from a creationist web page.
>
> >Molecular Evolution and Protobiology
> >By Matsuno, Dose, Harada and Rohlfing
> >
> >and that's Kaoru Harada who worked with Fox, he gives a fairly detailed first hand account of the studies in question.
>
> SO WHAT? Unless you give the actual cite, in the surrounding context, I have no
> reason to believe you because of all your previous lies.
that -is- the cite,
Molecular Evolution and Protobiology
By Matsuno, Dose, Harada and Rohlfing
it's a book, look it up. i don't feel like typing out the whole passage.
and Harada gives a detailed description of the work and not the simplistic
overview of certain points offered up in your harbinger presentation
> Nobody insists that the way Harada and Fox demonstrated, actually
> happened - that would take a time machine.
you're not comprehending that these experiments are done in a molten phase reaction
and that only glutamic aspartic and lysine form these lactam melts and that is why they must be present in excess.
it's not a 'fudge' it's the way those reactions go, the problem is, that the proportions of the excess molten
varieties is not naturally in agreement with that obtained in the experiment that purportedly naturally
produces the amino acids in the first place. yes, many combinations do not react, they don't go.
they didn't just stumble on the reactant mixtures that -did- go, they tried dozens of combinations.
they were -trying- to mimic and understand pre-biotic chemisty.
these reactions Do Not go in aqueous phase.
so, the problem is;
first, they convince themselves that amino acids can be form by elctric discharges in
the gas phase and high temperatures, and they do produce amino acids but then, they jump
to a totally new set of conditions to do teh second experiment, and these are conditions
which are -not- directly related to teh natural conditions which produced the acids in the first place.
and a striking difference is in the proportions of the amino acids.
not just any proportion goes, as noted by your harbinger piece that says they had
to -overcome- the problem of thermal decomposition. and they overcame this by using
excesses of specific acids, namely glutamic and aspartic
why? because these form melts and all the rest do not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism
csiph-web