Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #2070623 > unrolled thread

Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You

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.

Contents

  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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#2071488

addendum: 

go into the lab, and take the raw crud from any or all of the various electrical 
discharge, or UV light, or hot heat experiments, which produce the amino acid tar
and use that crud as the starting material for phase two, the melt inclusion 
followed by hot salt water wash to produce microspheres.

i suggest to you that there is a reason that they don't -emphasize- this, and that is
because they -did- try it that way and it din't go to microsphere stage because there 
is a whole lot of crud in the raw goop that interferes with -that- stage.

maybe you'll get a publication out of it.

maybe not.







Moses wrote:
> 
> 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]

#2071498

one other little thing;

much is made of the "non-randomness" of the proteinoid configuration in that over and over, 
the proteinoids from given starting materials are always the same. that each amino acid 
'determines' its own arrangements. trouble is, that proteins formed from genetic information 
always violate -this- determined sequence, and, in essence, produce "non-natural" protein sequences.

"naturally" occuring protein-like species are always the same

genetically produced protein species have a wide variety and diversity
 not found in the "naturally" occurring species.

i have some things to do, ... i may be back..later







Moses wrote:
> 
> addendum:
> 
> go into the lab, and take the raw crud from any or all of the various electrical
> discharge, or UV light, or hot heat experiments, which produce the amino acid tar
> and use that crud as the starting material for phase two, the melt inclusion
> followed by hot salt water wash to produce microspheres.
> 
> i suggest to you that there is a reason that they don't -emphasize- this, and that is
> because they -did- try it that way and it din't go to microsphere stage because there
> is a whole lot of crud in the raw goop that interferes with -that- stage.
> 
> maybe you'll get a publication out of it.
> 
> maybe not.
> 
> Moses wrote:
> >
> > 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]

#2071537

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 07:42:19 -0500, Moses
<noone@here.not-valid-address> wrote:

>
>
>one other little thing;
>
>much is made of the "non-randomness" of the proteinoid configuration in that over and over, 
>the proteinoids from given starting materials are always the same. that each amino acid 
>'determines' its own arrangements. 

And different amino acid mixes give different proteins.

>                                                         trouble is, that proteins formed from genetic information 
>always violate -this- determined sequence, and, in essence, produce "non-natural" protein sequences.

Natural enough to form protocells which metabolised, reproduced,
responded  to environmental stimuli, self-organised and over
subsequent generations even evolved nucleic acids that weren't there
initially.

From the original link that you never bothered to read...

"The third lecture in Rome (1990) concerned restating that the
arrangement of amino acids in thermal polymers is and was orderly.
After the papers emphasizing that amino acids can order themselves
with high precision when heated, the Polish chairman expressed
interest in seeing that DNA and RNA were unnecessary."

and

"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"

>"naturally" occuring protein-like species are always the same

NOBODY SAID THEY WERE MODERN PROTEINS, imbecile.

>genetically produced protein species have a wide variety and diversity
> not found in the "naturally" occurring species.

NOBODY EVER SAID THEY WERE MODERN PROTEINS, imbecile.

>i have some things to do, ... i may be back..later

If you are prepared to be honest for a change.

>
>
>
>
>Moses wrote:
>> 
>> addendum:
>> 
>> go into the lab, and take the raw crud from any or all of the various electrical
>> discharge, or UV light, or hot heat experiments, which produce the amino acid tar
>> and use that crud as the starting material for phase two, the melt inclusion
>> followed by hot salt water wash to produce microspheres.
>> 
>> i suggest to you that there is a reason that they don't -emphasize- this, and that is
>> because they -did- try it that way and it din't go to microsphere stage because there
>> is a whole lot of crud in the raw goop that interferes with -that- stage.
>> 
>> maybe you'll get a publication out of it.
>> 
>> maybe not.
>> 
>> Moses wrote:
>> >
>> > 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]

#2071534

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 06:48:23 -0500, Moses
<noone@here.not-valid-address> wrote:

>addendum: 
>
>go into the lab, and take the raw crud from any or all of the various electrical 
>discharge, or UV light, or hot heat experiments, which produce the amino acid tar
>and use that crud as the starting material for phase two, the melt inclusion 
>followed by hot salt water wash to produce microspheres.
>
>i suggest to you that there is a reason that they don't -emphasize- this, and that is
>because they -did- try it that way and it din't go to microsphere stage because there 
>is a whole lot of crud in the raw goop that interferes with -that- stage.
>
>maybe you'll get a publication out of it.
>
>maybe not.

Idiot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071533

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 06:10:55 -0500, Moses
<noone@here.not-valid-address> wrote:

>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 
>> >
>> >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, 

In what context?

I want to know where you cut'n'pasted it from - because you're too
lazy to have re-typed it yourself like I did with Fox's explanation of
what Salthe had got wrong about his work, showing that your mined
quote was the latter's view and why the former disagreed with it.

I found the preface to the book you described, including the table of
contents, on Springer.

http://www.springer.com/us/book/9781468446425

The book contains chapters written by a variety of authors, and
describes the state of the art in 1984. three decades after Fox's
original work.

You can preview each chapter.

So it wouldn't surprise me if it described more methodical, up-to-date
ways of producing the amino acids than Fox's earliest experiments.

Perhaps you might clarify which of the many authors wrote what you
cited, and in which chapter?

But in any case, it has been demonstrated that they will form under a
wide variety of terrestrial conditions and even in interstellar duct
clouds.

Until you do that, I'm going to treat this as another mined quote.

Because all Harada was saying, is that it wouldn't have happened in
exactly the same way three  billion years ago - not that it didn't
happen.

Especially in the light of your other dishonestly mined quotes.

Like your lies about bubbles etc in your earlier responses.

Did you finally look at the microphotograph showing the protocells
reproducing by budding?

Have you ever seen bubbles splitting that way?

>    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

The Harbinger presentation was Fox's own outline, simplified for the
layman. Not mine. And I read it without your intent to try and
discredit it.

Are you claiming he was being dishonest?

>> 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.

Even if that were true, SO FUCKING WHAT?

But that's not how Fox did it in his earliest experiments.

You just confirmed that amino acids will form under a wide variety of
conditions.

And DOES "MANY" MEAN "ALL"?

What part of "NOBODY INSISTS THAT IT HAPPENED IN EXACTLY THAT WAY
THREE BILLION YEARS AGO" are you still pretending you don't
understand?

>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.

More quote mining?

>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.

No, liar.

THAT WAS HOW MILLER AND UREY GENERATED AMINO ACIDS, NOT HOW FOX DID -
OR WHOEVER THE CHAPTER IN YOUR BOOK WAS ABOUT.

>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

Either learn to read for comprehension, or to stop lying. 

What  part of 

"When only a small proportion of these two amino acids is included we
get an amber-colored product. For years we thought the amber component
contaminated the kind of white product that professional polymer
chemists obtain, such as in styrofoam. In 1979, Dr. Klaus Dose and
associates of Mainz, Germany, showed that the amber color was due to
flavin, formed by heating amino acids together. We then remembered
that flavins are significant in energy metabolism of all cells; indeed
riboflavin is standard in the human diet and even in supplements in
the drugstore. The experiments indicate that flavin as there from the
beginning"

were you having difficulty understanding?

"a small proportion of these two amino acids"

Is that the same as an excess?

They thought this was a contaminant in the thermal proteins they had
already produced.

>why? because these form melts and all the rest do not.

NOT THE WAY FOX PRODUCED THEM IN HIS EARLY EXPERIMENTS.

This link gives a brief summary of various theories about the origin
of life.

http://www.uh.edu/~geos6g/1376/orginlife9.html

One  point I have issue with, is that it says the protocells were
incapable of genetic coding and therefore could not be regarded as
actual living organisms.

Although that is not part of the definition of life, which as you know
listed four properties pf the protocells.

Harada has described how the descendants of the initial protocells
evolved simple precursor nucleic acids over subsequent generations.

This sounds very much like a transition from non-life to extremely
primitive life.

Again, a link to the abstract on Springer...

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00700418 

    "The protocells have characteristics of life defined by Webster's
    Dictionary: metabolism, growth, reproduction and response to
    stimuli in the environment. THE PROTOCELLS ARE ABLE ALSO TO EVOLVE
    TO MORE MODERN CELLS INCLUDING THE INITIATION OF A NUCLEIC ACID
    CODING SYSTEM (my emphasis)"

Another is that their note about the Miller/Urey experiments doesn't
mention modern analysis techniques which weren't available sixty years
ago, showing that peptide chains were also formed in sealed phials of
their original results.

The difference between a peptide and a protein, is purely arbitrary
and is taken to be a chain of fifty amino acids in the polymer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071717

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 10:29:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
<c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:

(snip)

>Because all Harada was saying, is that it wouldn't have happened in
>exactly the same way three  billion years ago - not that it didn't
>happen.

I just made the same point in a reply to Moses. We don't need to know
exactly how it happened to know it happened.

I'm sorry, but I just skimming this exchange you have here. That's a
lot of words at 01.11 my time.


-- 
Malte Runz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071749

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 01:12:07 +0100, Malte Runz
<noyouare@notgetting.it> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 10:29:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
><c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>>Because all Harada was saying, is that it wouldn't have happened in
>>exactly the same way three  billion years ago - not that it didn't
>>happen.
>
>I just made the same point in a reply to Moses. We don't need to know
>exactly how it happened to know it happened.
>
>I'm sorry, but I just skimming this exchange you have here. That's a
>lot of words at 01.11 my time.

He's trying to discredit groundbreaking research that won't un-happen,
and without which Linus Pauling, Jack Szostak, etc wouldn't have won
their Nobel Prizes.

Fox is one of the giants on whose shoulders subsequent abiogenesis
researchers have stood.

But Moses is simply repeating stuff he got from (as far as I can tell)
a page by Duane Gish on the Institute for Creation Research's web
site. Neither he nor Gish actually bothered to read Fox's work for
comprehension because they lie about and distort its content.

He's used the standard dishonest tactic of quote mining from a review
of Fox's book, where the latter repeated the reviewer's objection to
provide context for an explanation why the objection was wrong. He
ignored the explanation but quoted the injection as if Fox agreed with
it.

His comment was that most people, even scientists, extrapolate
backwards from modern life, rather than forward from the extremely
primitive,

As you say, we are the result of three billion years of evolution from
whatever may or may not actually have happened.

But this is what puzzles me. Do they seriously imagine that all these
researchers are lying? 

I know Wikipedia isn't a primary source, and should be used as a
guide, with its references being the actual source.

But for scientific  research, you often have to pay for the primary
sources either in book form or as downloads from Stringer etc. So you
have to glean what you can from the abstracts.

For example, he insisted that the thermal protein formation took
intense heat hot enough to melt some the amino acids - but he
completely missed what he could have found on Wikipedia if he were
serious...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteinoid#Polymerization

  The abiotic polymerization of amino acids into proteins through the
  formation of peptide bonds was thought to occur only at temperatures
  over 140 °C. However, the biochemist Sidney Walter Fox and his
  co-workers discovered that phosphoric acid acted as a catalyst for
  this reaction.[citation needed] They were able to form protein-like
  chains from a mixture of 18 common amino acids at 70 °C in the
  presence of phosphoric acid, and dubbed these protein-like chains
  proteinoids. Fox later found naturally occurring proteinoids similar
  to those he had created in his laboratory in lava and cinders from
  Hawaiian volcanic vents and determined that the amino acids present
  polymerized due to the heat of escaping gases and lava.[citation
  needed] Other catalysts have since been found; one of them,
  amidinium carbodiimide, is formed in primitive Earth experiments and
  is effective in dilute aqueous solutions.

In other words, many different ways. Any one of which might have been
what actually happened. Or not, if more different ways are found.

And the fact these protocells reproduce, evolving nucleic acids over
subsequent generations refutes the insistence that they are not life
because they don't contain DNA.

Just as many different ways have been found for the formation of amino
acids, and not just terrestrially - they have even been observed in
interstellar dust clouds.

So many, in fact, that many abiogenesis researchers think life
elsewhere would seem to be inevitable, given the right conditions.

Yet he (or Gish) seized on only one way for each of these, and
complained that they weren't very natural enough for him.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071001

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.

Except that these protocells were an unexpected result of research
into abiotic protein formation.

And none of the work involved "isolates from living organisms".

>> >> 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, moron.

Neither DNA nor RNA are part of the definition of life.

The page you dishonestly quote mined, even referred to precursors of
RNA.

And these protocells even evolved primitive nucleic acids over
subsequent generations.

Which might or might not have subsequently evolved into RNA.

None of this will un-happen, no matter how much you lie about it, how
in-denial you are, how many red herrings you introduce, etc.
 
>> 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.

It was nothing to do with RNA.

And none of this involved "isolates from living organisms".

Although even more primitive precursor nucleic acids evolved in the
descendents of these proto 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"
>
>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.

So what?

This was the transition from non-life to extremely simple life.

Life which metabolised. reproduced and whose descendents evolved
nucleic acids.

No matter how much you deny it.

>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"

They satisfied the definition of life - which was not Fox's.

In spite of the way you lied that the results was twisted to fit.

>the same argument can be applied to the other "characteristics" of the protein aggregates
>that are also found in living organisms.

No, moron.

>basically what you've got there is the "egg shell"

Liar.

>Q. "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
>
>A. "the egg shell"

Either learn to read for comprehension, or to stop lying.

>trouble is, the egg shell isn't alive

Idiot.

>"first organism" still imaginary

Liar.

Nobody knows whether the first life was formed exactly that way,
because nobody was around more than three billion years ago to observe
it.

But what it does show, is that it only takes simple, natural
processes.

You refuse this because it didn't result in modern life forms, and you
refuse to accept that modern life evolved over a few billion years
from simple, less complex life - which are what  your religion has
brainwashed you to believe.

The rest of us live in the real world. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070695

> > > 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.


oh, i'd 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070750

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.

We have very, very good ways of knowing what Earth has looked like
over the last few billion years. And one thing we can say, with
absolute certainty, is that there was no worldwide flood covering even
the tallest mountains in recent history. Those are facts, and you can
go all mumbo jumbo on my ass, nothing will change that.

>
>now, the bereshith ...

I have no idea who or what "bereshith" is, and I shall waste no time
figuring it out. 



> ... 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.

If anything like that had happened the Earth's surface would look
nothing like it actually does. There is only one sane conclusion:
There was no Noahtic Flood. Unless, of course, God used his powers to
make it look like it never happened.

>
>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.

Does the bere shith in the wood? 

>
>
>> > ... 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?

A very thick, graded layer, with all the heavy materials at the bottom
and the finer materials at the top. We would see dinosaurs bones mixed
with elephant bones, trilobites and rabbits all mixed up. We don't see
anything like that. What we see debunks the flood fable.

>bereshit does not suggest that the earth convulsed with hurricanes and
>earthquakes and violence.
>just water up water down, and its over.

Something that can be falsified by looking out of the window. And yes,
the Flood myth is over and done. It didn't happen.

>
>
>> > ... 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

Erosion. Get used to it.

>you used to be able to walk to australia.

During an ice age shitloads of water is 'tied up' in glaciers. Water
levels were hundreds of meters lower.

>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.

Yes. There is a lot of water (ice, actually) in space. So what. There
is a lot of water trapped in crystaline structures deep beneath the
Earth's surface.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/

>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.

You obviously know very little about how matter behaves in various
situations. Some materials crystalize before others (a matter of
temparature, saturation, pressure and so on), and will either float to
the top, like granite, or sink like heavy metals. The latter can be
pushed up towards the surface as a result of techtonics. Is all this
news to you?

>
>
>> > ... 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//

OT.


>
>
>> >> > ... 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".

Then explain what you mean by "some conscious being".

> ... 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 never say accident.


>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.

No it wasn't. Human activity is naturalistic. Therefore skyscrapers
are the results of naturalistic mechanisms.

>
>
>> >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,


What else would you call it.


> and so, we may as well agree that an interfering God is "naturalistic"...


As soon as you can show me that an interfering God exists, yes.

 
>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"

Show me the God, and I'll call him and all his doings naturalistic.
Otherwise it's woo, and woo is the opposite of naturalistic.


>an interfering God is "naturalistic" according to you.

If such a thing existed, yes. If not, woo.

>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.

Only the ignorant an uneducated would say that a living cell is the
result of "a random scattering" of chemicals. Count me out.

>
>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.

I'm afraid it died 3.8 billion years ago.


>as it is, you may just speak of it, and demand that i accept your quaint
>little tales.
>
>but i don't.

I know you don't, and, frankly, I don't care.
>
>
>> > ... 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.

I'm speechless for all the wrong reasons.

>
>> >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.

The first life was not a fully functional living cell like those we
see today. I'm not going to explain to you the various hypothesis
about abiogenesis. You can find it online yourself. But it is obvious
that you prefer to attack the creationists' strawman version.

>
>
>> 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.

Ever heard of sarcasm?


>and guppies will not swim up niagra falls either

I bet your interfering God could make it happen. When you assume that
God exists, and that he is omnipotent, you can make everything happen
in God's name. 

>
>
>> > ... 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.

Show the physical god, and I'll call him naturalistic. Until then it's
woo, and nothing else.

>
>> >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.

We call it "woo".


>materialism simply does not provide a comprehensive portrait of reality.

I will call the idea of woo naturalistic, since it resides in the
heads of people like you. But it doesn't make the woo itself part of
reality.
-- 
Malte Runz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070774

Malte Runz wrote:
> 
>  Moses 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.
> 
> We have very, very good ways of knowing what Earth has looked like
> over the last few billion years. And one thing we can say, with
> absolute certainty, is that there was no worldwide flood covering even
> the tallest mountains in recent history. Those are facts, and you can
> go all mumbo jumbo on my ass, nothing will change that.


all i see here are your assertions to the contrary.

we know it happened, my we is bigger than your we, we vote on it.

you seem to be concerned with the height of teh mountains and the available water

but, you fail to recognize that the interfering God can 
pump the interior waters well up above the surface level

you even provide a citation that speaks of loads of subterranean waters.

the interference pushed it up and rained it down, very slowly and controlled and later 
assuaged it away in a very controlled manner and there was no massive pile of mud strewn 
around, but, the water levels did change as you agree below.

gunna stamp your feet if we don't kow tow to your bald assertions?



> >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.

> If anything like that had happened the Earth's surface would look
> nothing like it actually does. There is only one sane conclusion:
> There was no Noahtic Flood. Unless, of course, God used his powers to
> make it look like it never happened.

and yet your own little blurb speaks of a lot of water under the surface

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/
""A reservoir of water three times the volume of all the oceans has been discovered 
deep beneath the Earth’s surface. The finding could help explain where Earth’s seas came from.""

plenty of water to cover the surface of the earth. even if some is in hydrated rocks.
yes, the bereshith account speaks of interference. not a process that would have 
happened without the interference. there's no need to substantiate thatmud
 covered the globe because of it.


> >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?

> A very thick, graded layer, with all the heavy materials at the bottom
> and the finer materials at the top. We would see dinosaurs bones mixed
> with elephant bones, trilobites and rabbits all mixed up. We don't see
> anything like that. What we see debunks the flood fable.

the water didn't move a lot of mud around, it just slowly crept up 
and slowly disappeared pushed by the interfering God.
i'm not saying that the fossil mud was caused by this flood.

you haven't shown otherwise.


> >bereshit does not suggest that the earth convulsed with hurricanes and
> >earthquakes and violence.
> >just water up water down, and its over.
> 
> Something that can be falsified by looking out of the window. And yes,
> the Flood myth is over and done. It didn't happen.

you haven't falsified anything.

looking out the window doesn't prove that water rose and water fell and
didn't convulse the planet.


> >> > ... 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

> Erosion. Get used to it.

no, easter mountain was accessible from south america
the water level was much lower, that's what enabled the manufacture and
moving of the statues
they weren't built by space aliens, they were carved and moved here on
earth by earth people
they just weren't confined to the small island at the time. the water
level was lower and more access was available.


> >you used to be able to walk to australia.

> During an ice age shitloads of water is 'tied up' in glaciers. Water
> levels were hundreds of meters lower.


right, the water levels are different, that's a change that can be noted.
you just have a different explanation for how the water levels increased.


> >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.

> Yes. There is a lot of water (ice, actually) in space. So what. There
> is a lot of water trapped in crystaline structures deep beneath the
> Earth's surface.
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/


plenty of water to cover the surface


> >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 the globe.

> You obviously know very little about how matter behaves in various
> situations. Some materials crystalize before others (a matter of
> temparature, saturation, pressure and so on), and will either float to
> the top, like granite, or sink like heavy metals. The latter can be
> pushed up towards the surface as a result of techtonics. Is all this
> news to you?

you still wouldn't see these pockets of ores like you see.
it would make more sense to say that this accretion disk formed slowly 
and was never molten and continued to accrete after a globe was formed.
but, i don't hold to accretion disk theories, i have other theories.

but, of course, if the earth was never molten, then the uranium clocks would 
be meaningless and you have to at least try to maintain that the uranium
clocks are meaningful.


> >> > ... 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//
> 
> OT.


not if the six fingered things weren't human.


> >> >> > ... 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".
> 
> Then explain what you mean by "some conscious being".


man's planned activities are not naturalistic, we will never agree on this so, 
you can keep your understanding of naturalistic and i'll keep mine.

a crows planned activities are not naturalistic i'm speaking of the activities 
of natural forces that do not, themselves think and actually can be
predicted with precise certainty.

gravity doesn't think, electricity doesn't think, entropy doesn't think
and you can very well predict their purely mechanical behavior.

these living creatures have unpredictable behavior patterns.

they do things that would run contrary to the natural predictable
pattern of gravity electromagnetism and decay


> > ... 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 never say accident.


then you can say on purpose


> >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.
> 
> No it wasn't. Human activity is naturalistic. Therefore skyscrapers
> are the results of naturalistic mechanisms.


no it isn't, human activity oftentimes strives against nature


> >> >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,

> What else would you call it.


i'd call it conscious interference



> > and so, we may as well agree that an interfering God is "naturalistic"...

> As soon as you can show me that an interfering God exists, yes.


finger prints are there.


> >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.
> 
> Only the ignorant an uneducated would say that a living cell is the
> result of "a random scattering" of chemicals. Count me out.


i said, show me a living cell emerging from a random scattering of chemicals by the forces of gravity
and electromagnetism alone, because those are the only natural forces you have to play with.
you'd have natural forces behaving as a device to produce the device that reproduces itself.
the cell now uses its dna as a template to copy itself, but, you'd be claiming that gravity and 
electromagnetism do this same assembling without the coded set of instructions that are required to replicate it now.

you say natural forces write an algorithm, but you can only say, 

"the algorithm exists, it must have written itself"


> >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.
> 
> I'm afraid it died 3.8 billion years ago.


so you have no evidence of it?


> >> >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.

> The first life was not a fully functional living cell like those we
> see today. 

and just don't happen to be available in the fossil record, so, you have
no evidence of them



> I'm not going to explain to you the various hypothesis
> about abiogenesis. You can find it online yourself. 

you and your wild guesses aren't evidences

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070880

On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 07:29:48 -0500, Moses wrote:

> Malte Runz wrote:
>> 
>>  Moses 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.
>> 
>> We have very, very good ways of knowing what Earth has looked like over
>> the last few billion years. And one thing we can say, with absolute
>> certainty, is that there was no worldwide flood covering even the
>> tallest mountains in recent history. Those are facts, and you can go
>> all mumbo jumbo on my ass, nothing will change that.
> 
> all i see here are your assertions to the contrary.
> 
> we know it happened, my we is bigger than your we, we vote on it.

By that stupidity, when the majority of people believed the world was 
flat, it was flat.
When did it change to an oblate spheroid and why did nobody notice the 
change?

> you seem to be concerned with the height of teh mountains and the
> available water
> 
> but, you fail to recognize that the interfering God can pump the
> interior waters well up above the surface level

What interior waters would they be?
And that would be the god for which you have no evidence.
 
> you even provide a citation that speaks of loads of subterranean waters.
> 
> the interference pushed it up and rained it down, very slowly and
> controlled and later assuaged it away in a very controlled manner and
> there was no massive pile of mud strewn around, but, the water levels
> did change as you agree below.
> 
> gunna stamp your feet if we don't kow tow to your bald assertions?

What, like you do?

<snip>

-- 
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made 
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070902

On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 19:20:35 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 07:29:48 -0500, Moses wrote:
>
>> Malte Runz wrote:
>>> 
>>>  Moses 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.
>>> 
>>> We have very, very good ways of knowing what Earth has looked like over
>>> the last few billion years. And one thing we can say, with absolute
>>> certainty, is that there was no worldwide flood covering even the
>>> tallest mountains in recent history. Those are facts, and you can go
>>> all mumbo jumbo on my ass, nothing will change that.
>> 
>> all i see here are your assertions to the contrary.
>> 
>> we know it happened, my we is bigger than your we, we vote on it.
>
>By that stupidity, when the majority of people believed the world was 
>flat, it was flat.
>When did it change to an oblate spheroid and why did nobody notice the 
>change?
>
>> you seem to be concerned with the height of teh mountains and the
>> available water
>> 
>> but, you fail to recognize that the interfering God can pump the
>> interior waters well up above the surface level
>
>What interior waters would they be?
>And that would be the god for which you have no evidence.
> 
>> you even provide a citation that speaks of loads of subterranean waters.
>> 
>> the interference pushed it up and rained it down, very slowly and
>> controlled and later assuaged it away in a very controlled manner and
>> there was no massive pile of mud strewn around, but, the water levels
>> did change as you agree below.
>> 
>> gunna stamp your feet if we don't kow tow to your bald assertions?
>
>What, like you do?
>
><snip>

Those standing near the edge were thrown into space when the corners
all curled up to join together?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070919

On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 13:56:36 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
<c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 19:20:35 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 07:29:48 -0500, Moses wrote:
>>
>>> Malte Runz wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>  Moses 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.
>>>> 
>>>> We have very, very good ways of knowing what Earth has looked like over
>>>> the last few billion years. And one thing we can say, with absolute
>>>> certainty, is that there was no worldwide flood covering even the
>>>> tallest mountains in recent history. Those are facts, and you can go
>>>> all mumbo jumbo on my ass, nothing will change that.
>>> 
>>> all i see here are your assertions to the contrary.
>>> 
>>> we know it happened, my we is bigger than your we, we vote on it.
>>
>>By that stupidity, when the majority of people believed the world was 
>>flat, it was flat.
>>When did it change to an oblate spheroid and why did nobody notice the 
>>change?
>>
>>> you seem to be concerned with the height of teh mountains and the
>>> available water
>>> 
>>> but, you fail to recognize that the interfering God can pump the
>>> interior waters well up above the surface level
>>
>>What interior waters would they be?
>>And that would be the god for which you have no evidence.
>> 
>>> you even provide a citation that speaks of loads of subterranean waters.
>>> 
>>> the interference pushed it up and rained it down, very slowly and
>>> controlled and later assuaged it away in a very controlled manner and
>>> there was no massive pile of mud strewn around, but, the water levels
>>> did change as you agree below.
>>> 
>>> gunna stamp your feet if we don't kow tow to your bald assertions?
>>
>>What, like you do?
>>
>><snip>
>
>Those standing near the edge were thrown into space when the corners
>all curled up to join together?
>
My grandparents homesteaded on a farm in northwest Oklahoma, then set
up a little store on the southeast corner of their farm, at the
northwest corner of the intersection where a rural north-south road
intersected the east-west road. Then other stores and businesses were
set up on the other "corners" of that intersection. The locals
frequently referred to various stores as being on the northwest
corner...the southeast corner, etc. Yet the earth was spherical. Maybe
their thinking was the same as those ancient people who mentioned the
four corners of the earth...relative to the intersection where their
town was set up.   Gordon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070927

On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 14:27:59 -0600, Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 13:56:36 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
><c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 19:20:35 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 07:29:48 -0500, Moses wrote:
>>>
>>>> Malte Runz wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Moses 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We have very, very good ways of knowing what Earth has looked like over
>>>>> the last few billion years. And one thing we can say, with absolute
>>>>> certainty, is that there was no worldwide flood covering even the
>>>>> tallest mountains in recent history. Those are facts, and you can go
>>>>> all mumbo jumbo on my ass, nothing will change that.
>>>> 
>>>> all i see here are your assertions to the contrary.
>>>> 
>>>> we know it happened, my we is bigger than your we, we vote on it.
>>>
>>>By that stupidity, when the majority of people believed the world was 
>>>flat, it was flat.
>>>When did it change to an oblate spheroid and why did nobody notice the 
>>>change?
>>>
>>>> you seem to be concerned with the height of teh mountains and the
>>>> available water
>>>> 
>>>> but, you fail to recognize that the interfering God can pump the
>>>> interior waters well up above the surface level
>>>
>>>What interior waters would they be?
>>>And that would be the god for which you have no evidence.
>>> 
>>>> you even provide a citation that speaks of loads of subterranean waters.
>>>> 
>>>> the interference pushed it up and rained it down, very slowly and
>>>> controlled and later assuaged it away in a very controlled manner and
>>>> there was no massive pile of mud strewn around, but, the water levels
>>>> did change as you agree below.
>>>> 
>>>> gunna stamp your feet if we don't kow tow to your bald assertions?
>>>
>>>What, like you do?
>>>
>>><snip>
>>
>>Those standing near the edge were thrown into space when the corners
>>all curled up to join together?
>>
>My grandparents homesteaded on a farm in northwest Oklahoma, then set
>up a little store on the southeast corner of their farm, at the
>northwest corner of the intersection where a rural north-south road
>intersected the east-west road. Then other stores and businesses were
>set up on the other "corners" of that intersection. The locals
>frequently referred to various stores as being on the northwest
>corner...the southeast corner, etc. 

Of the intersection, imbecile, not the world.

>                                                     Yet the earth was spherical. Maybe
>their thinking was the same as those ancient people who mentioned the
>four corners of the earth

And maybe you're plucking this out of your arse.

OT cosmology has a flat Earth with the sky as a canopy, with the sun,
moon and stars set in it and holes throgh which it rains.

>                                        ...relative to the intersection where their
>town was set up.   

Idiot.

>                             Gordon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070923

On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 19:20:35 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 07:29:48 -0500, Moses wrote:
>
>> Malte Runz wrote:
>>> 
>>>  Moses wrote:
>>> 
<snip>
>>> 
>>> We have very, very good ways of knowing what Earth has looked like over
>>> the last few billion years. And one thing we can say, with absolute
>>> certainty, is that there was no worldwide flood covering even the
>>> tallest mountains in recent history. Those are facts, and you can go
>>> all mumbo jumbo on my ass, nothing will change that.
>> 
>> all i see here are your assertions to the contrary.
>> 
>> we know it happened, my we is bigger than your we, we vote on it.
>
>By that stupidity, when the majority of people believed the world was 
>flat, it was flat.
>When did it change to an oblate spheroid and why did nobody notice the 
>change?
>
>> you seem to be concerned with the height of teh mountains and the
>> available water
>> 
>> but, you fail to recognize that the interfering God can pump the
>> interior waters well up above the surface level
>
>What interior waters would they be?
>And that would be the god for which you have no evidence.
> 
Of course there is NO material evidence of God's existence that can be
objectively tested but that doesn't "prove" that there is nothing
beyond our physical universe. Super String-Membrane theory is very
much the same. It can't be objectively verified, yet it is intriguing
and worth giving some attention to. Maybe sometime down the way we
will all have a better understanding of things like these.   Gordon
>
>> you even provide a citation that speaks of loads of subterranean waters.
>> 
>> the interference pushed it up and rained it down, very slowly and
>> controlled and later assuaged it away in a very controlled manner and
>> there was no massive pile of mud strewn around, but, the water levels
>> did change as you agree below.
>> 
>> gunna stamp your feet if we don't kow tow to your bald assertions?
>
>What, like you do?
>
><snip>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070937

On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 14:33:36 -0600, Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 19:20:35 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 07:29:48 -0500, Moses wrote:
>>
>>> Malte Runz wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>  Moses wrote:
>>>> 
><snip>
>>>> 
>>>> We have very, very good ways of knowing what Earth has looked like over
>>>> the last few billion years. And one thing we can say, with absolute
>>>> certainty, is that there was no worldwide flood covering even the
>>>> tallest mountains in recent history. Those are facts, and you can go
>>>> all mumbo jumbo on my ass, nothing will change that.
>>> 
>>> all i see here are your assertions to the contrary.
>>> 
>>> we know it happened, my we is bigger than your we, we vote on it.
>>
>>By that stupidity, when the majority of people believed the world was 
>>flat, it was flat.
>>When did it change to an oblate spheroid and why did nobody notice the 
>>change?
>>
>>> you seem to be concerned with the height of teh mountains and the
>>> available water
>>> 
>>> but, you fail to recognize that the interfering God can pump the
>>> interior waters well up above the surface level
>>
>>What interior waters would they be?
>>And that would be the god for which you have no evidence.
>> 
>Of course there is NO material evidence of God's existence that can be

THEN KEEP YOUR HYPOTHETICAL GOD WHERE IT BELONGS, ie inside your
religion.

That way you won't get told to put up or shut up.

>objectively tested but that doesn't "prove" that there is nothing
>beyond our physical universe. 

Which is nothing whatsoever to do with your baseless god claims.

You are inventing things 

>                                                   Super String-Membrane theory is very
>much the same. It can't be objectively verified, yet it is intriguing
>and worth giving some attention to. 

If and when it is eventually justified.

At the moment it is no more than speculation.

Why do you imagine it is anybody's job apart from those who propose
it?

Even if some moron sez his pretend friend is hiding in the extra,
THEORETICAL dimensions which at the moment are nothing more than a
mathematical abstraction.

>                                                         Maybe sometime down the way we
>will all have a better understanding of things like these.   

Idiot.

>                                                                                         Gordon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071280

On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 14:33:36 -0600, Gordon wrote:

> On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 19:20:35 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote:
> 
>>On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 07:29:48 -0500, Moses wrote:
>>
>>> Malte Runz wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>  Moses wrote:
>>>> 
> <snip>
>>>> 
>>>> We have very, very good ways of knowing what Earth has looked like
>>>> over the last few billion years. And one thing we can say, with
>>>> absolute certainty, is that there was no worldwide flood covering
>>>> even the tallest mountains in recent history. Those are facts, and
>>>> you can go all mumbo jumbo on my ass, nothing will change that.
>>> 
>>> all i see here are your assertions to the contrary.
>>> 
>>> we know it happened, my we is bigger than your we, we vote on it.
>>
>>By that stupidity, when the majority of people believed the world was
>>flat, it was flat.
>>When did it change to an oblate spheroid and why did nobody notice the
>>change?
>>
>>> you seem to be concerned with the height of teh mountains and the
>>> available water
>>> 
>>> but, you fail to recognize that the interfering God can pump the
>>> interior waters well up above the surface level
>>
>>What interior waters would they be?
>>And that would be the god for which you have no evidence.
>> 
> Of course there is NO material evidence of God's existence that can be
> objectively tested 

Then why should _anyone_ believe in it?

> but that doesn't "prove" that there is nothing beyond our physical 
> universe. 

It's your claim that there is 'something', so it's your job to provide the 
evidence that there is. Until you do, we're fully justified in not 
believing you.
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

> Super String-Membrane theory is very much the
> same. It can't be objectively verified, yet it is intriguing and worth
> giving some attention to. Maybe sometime down the way we will all have a
> better understanding of things like these.   

The 'God of the gaps' is getting smaller each day.

-- 
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made 
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070897

On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 07:29:48 -0500, Moses <moses@sinai.56> wrote:

>Malte Runz wrote:
>> 
>>  Moses 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.
>> 
>> We have very, very good ways of knowing what Earth has looked like
>> over the last few billion years. And one thing we can say, with
>> absolute certainty, is that there was no worldwide flood covering even
>> the tallest mountains in recent history. Those are facts, and you can
>> go all mumbo jumbo on my ass, nothing will change that.
>
>
>all i see here are your assertions to the contrary.

Regarding what?

>
>we know it happened, my we is bigger than your we, we vote on it.

You don't vote in science. Will you show me yours if I show you
mine... evidence, that is?


>
>you seem to be concerned with the height of teh mountains and the available water

Of course. The higher the mountains the more water had to be added and
then subtracted. And we're way past absurd.

>
>but, you fail to recognize that the interfering God can 
>pump the interior waters well up above the surface level

You know what, I'm glad somebody finally says it like it is. 'It takes
something that can brake the laws of nature to create the Flood.

>
>you even provide a citation that speaks of loads of subterranean waters.

Why do you think I did that? Did you read the article? Did you read
this:
"The water is hidden inside a blue rock called ringwoodite that lies
700 kilometers underground in the mantle, the layer of hot rock
between Earth’s surface and its core."

>
>the interference  pushed it up and rained it down, ...

You didn't read the article. All I had to do was hold out my fist, and
you slammed your face into it (after I asked you not to sit on it).


> ... very slowly and controlled and later 
>assuaged it away in a very controlled manner ...

How did "the interference" get it back down 700 km, down in the Mantle
back into the ringwoodite? Because that is where the water is now. It
takes an omnipotent god, right.


> ... and there was no massive pile of mud strewn 
>around, but, the water levels did change as you agree below.

Have you ever looked at the cross section of a drained basin? Oh,
sorry... 
Imagine a dried out puddle of water out in the fields. You'll notice
the there is a small film of silt and clay articles covering the
coarser material. Now imagine the whole globe covered in water. Strong
currents (cutting canyons and shith) whirling up millions of tons of
material. Let the water 'assuage away', and you telling me that there
will not be a thick coat of silt and clay everywhere? 

>
>gunna stamp your feet if we don't kow tow to your bald assertions?

Let me remind you of what you wrote above:
***
> .. you fail to recognize that the interfering God can 
>pump the interior waters well up above the surface level
***

Now tell me about my "bald assertions".


>
>
>
>> >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.
>
>> If anything like that had happened the Earth's surface would look
>> nothing like it actually does. There is only one sane conclusion:
>> There was no Noahtic Flood. Unless, of course, God used his powers to
>> make it look like it never happened.
>
>and yet your own little blurb speaks of a lot of water under the surface
>
>https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/
>""A reservoir of water three times the volume of all the oceans has been discovered 
>deep beneath the Earth’s surface. The finding could help explain where Earth’s seas came from.""
>
>plenty of water to cover the surface of the earth. even if some is in hydrated rocks.

700 km down. That is where the water is now. If you claim that that
water was the Noahic water, you must explain how it got back down into
the rocks. I'm perfectly fine with you saying 'Goddidit'. That's
honest and does not pretend to be scientific. 'Magic' is the word, and
you own it.


(snip)


>> >if the process was controlled and slow, as bereshith suggests, what
>> >would you expect to see?
>
>> A very thick, graded layer, with all the heavy materials at the bottom
>> and the finer materials at the top. We would see dinosaurs bones mixed
>> with elephant bones, trilobites and rabbits all mixed up. We don't see
>> anything like that. What we see debunks the flood fable.
>
>the water didn't move a lot of mud around, it just slowly crept up 
>and slowly disappeared pushed by the interfering God.

Bald assertion. No evidence to back it up. 

>i'm not saying that the fossil mud was caused by this flood.

"the fossil mud"?

>
>you haven't shown otherwise.

I'm confused, I must admit. What is it I have to show about "the
fossil mud"?

>
>
>> >bereshit does not suggest that the earth convulsed with hurricanes and
>> >earthquakes and violence.
>> >just water up water down, and its over.
>> 
>> Something that can be falsified by looking out of the window. And yes,
>> the Flood myth is over and done. It didn't happen.
>
>you haven't falsified anything.

Of course I can't falsify the supposed, magical works of an
interfering god, who is not of this naturalistic world. But I can
easily disprove that the Earth can have been covered in 8000 m of
water, that is no longer present, by naturalistic means.


>
>looking out the window doesn't prove that water rose and water fell and
>didn't convulse the planet.

Then what would prove it? I know that an omnipotent god can do
anything, but that doesn't prove it happened. So, Moses, what would
prove your theory? 

>
>
>> >> > ... 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
>
>> Erosion. Get used to it.
>
>no, easter mountain was accessible from south america

Easter Island is a volcanic island, formed roughly 750.000 years ago,
formed over a so called hotspot underneath the Pacific Plate. This
assertion is based on physical evidence, and does not require the
workings of an  omnipotent god. And that's why mine is bigger than
yours, punk.

>the water level was much lower, that's what enabled the manufacture and
>moving of the statues
>they weren't built by space aliens, they were carved and moved here on
>earth by earth people
>they just weren't confined to the small island at the time. the water
>level was lower and more access was available.

I know you're fluent in Gibberish, but I'm surprised to see you master
Gobbledygook. The Easter Island volcano rises about 2000 meters above
the seabed. There never was dry land between the islands and the South
American continent. You have to look into things before you think it
supports your ideas.

>
>
>> >you used to be able to walk to australia.
>
>> During an ice age shitloads of water is 'tied up' in glaciers. Water
>> levels were hundreds of meters lower.
>
>
>right, the water levels are different, that's a change that can be noted.
>you just have a different explanation for how the water levels increased.

It's the naturalistic explanation, with all it's limits and
boundaries. Every time you hid the limit of what is physically
possible you invoke God. Big points for honesty, absolutely no points
for scientific achievements.

>
>
>> >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.
>
>> Yes. There is a lot of water (ice, actually) in space. So what. There
>> is a lot of water trapped in crystaline structures deep beneath the
>> Earth's surface.
>> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/
>
>
>plenty of water to cover the surface

Water comes up, water comes down. How?

>
>
>> >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 the globe.
>
>> You obviously know very little about how matter behaves in various
>> situations. Some materials crystalize before others (a matter of
>> temparature, saturation, pressure and so on), and will either float to
>> the top, like granite, or sink like heavy metals. The latter can be
>> pushed up towards the surface as a result of techtonics. Is all this
>> news to you?
>
>you still wouldn't see these pockets of ores like you see.

Why not? 

>it would make more sense to say that this accretion disk formed slowly 
>and was never molten and continued to accrete after a globe was formed.

Why would that make more sense? Do you know what happens with material
when you apply pressure? 


>but, i don't hold to accretion disk theories, i have other theories.

'It's very thin in one end, thicker on the middle and very thin at the
other end.'

>
>but, of course, if the earth was never molten, then the uranium clocks would 
>be meaningless and you have to at least try to maintain that the uranium
>clocks are meaningful.
>
>
>> >> > ... 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//
>> 
>> OT.
>
>
>not if the six fingered things weren't human.

You missed the joke, that's all.

(snip)


>man's planned activities are not naturalistic, we will never agree on this so, 
>you can keep your understanding of naturalistic and i'll keep mine.
>
>a crows planned activities are not naturalistic i'm speaking of the activities 
>of natural forces that do not, themselves think and actually can be
>predicted with precise certainty.
>
>gravity doesn't think, electricity doesn't think, entropy doesn't think
>and you can very well predict their purely mechanical behavior.

Because of the predictability of the behavior, we can make things
happen, but neither man, nor crow can change the mechanical behavior
of gravity, or the other forces. We're restricted by the laws of
nature. 

I can boil a pot of water, and a puddle can evaporate. It's the same
physics that turn liquid water into vapor, but are the two cases
different? Is what you say basically, that sentience, intelligence and
intent is not naturalistic?

>
>these living creatures have unpredictable behavior patterns.
>
>they do things that would run contrary to the natural predictable
>pattern of gravity electromagnetism and decay

I think I'd like an example at this point.

>
>
>> > ... 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 never say accident.
>
>
>then you can say on purpose

It's not an accident that puddle water evaporates in the sunlight.
It's not done on, or with, purpose. It's the same with universes.

(snip)

>> >
>> >ok, so, a thing that is planned out by sentient beings is now
>> >"naturalistic" according to you,
>
>> What else would you call it.
>
>
>i'd call it conscious interference

Consciousness is as 'naturalistic' as gravity or ringwoodite.

>
>
>
>> > and so, we may as well agree that an interfering God is "naturalistic"...
>
>> As soon as you can show me that an interfering God exists, yes.
>
>
>finger prints are there.

Let's see them. Wait... I have to find them in my own head and my own
heart, right?

>
>
>> >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.
>> 
>> Only the ignorant an uneducated would say that a living cell is the
>> result of "a random scattering" of chemicals. Count me out.
>
>
>i said, show me a living cell emerging from a random scattering of chemicals by the forces of gravity
>and electromagnetism alone, because those are the only natural forces you have to play with.

I don't do magic. Cells are not formed that way. 

>you'd have natural forces behaving as a device to produce the device that reproduces itself.

Like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBty_NCRmJk

>the cell now uses its dna as a template to copy itself, but, you'd be claiming that gravity and 
>electromagnetism do this same assembling without the coded set of instructions that are required to replicate it now.

I would never claim that. We know how modern cells form today. They
divide, and it is not an accident every time it happens. Neither is
there intent behind. Water evaporates, cells divide. 

This is really all about how life arose from dead material and forces,
if it wasn't done by God, and you're dragging the 'suddenly a cell
appeared by accident' strawman on the stage by his leg. Show some
mercy, Moses, and let the poor bastard die in peace.


>
>you say natural forces write an algorithm, ...

I doubt I said that. Algorithms are created with a specific purpose in
mind, and there is neither purpose nor mind behind the natural forces.

> .. but you can only say, 
>
>"the algorithm exists, it must have written itself"

There is no algorithm that makes matter behave the way it does.
>
>
>> >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.
>> 
>> I'm afraid it died 3.8 billion years ago.
>
>
>so you have no evidence of it?


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v384/n6604/abs/384055a0.html


>
>
>> >> >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.
>
>> The first life was not a fully functional living cell like those we
>> see today. 
>
>and just don't happen to be available in the fossil record, so, you have
>no evidence of them

Nope. 


>
>
>
>> I'm not going to explain to you the various hypothesis
>> about abiogenesis. You can find it online yourself. 
>
>you and your wild guesses aren't evidences

Where are the fossils of Adam and Eve? 

-- 
Malte Runz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070906

On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 20:53:57 +0100, Malte Runz
<noyouare@notgetting.it> wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 07:29:48 -0500, Moses <moses@sinai.56> wrote:
>

>>but, you fail to recognize that the interfering God can 
>>pump the interior waters well up above the surface level

A god that he should have justified before attributing anything to it.

>You know what, I'm glad somebody finally says it like it is. 'It takes
>something that can brake the laws of nature to create the Flood.
>
>>
>>you even provide a citation that speaks of loads of subterranean waters.
>
>Why do you think I did that? Did you read the article? Did you read
>this:
>"The water is hidden inside a blue rock called ringwoodite that lies
>700 kilometers underground in the mantle, the layer of hot rock
>between Earth’s surface and its core."
>
>>
>>the interference  pushed it up and rained it down, ...
>
>You didn't read the article. All I had to do was hold out my fist, and
>you slammed your face into it (after I asked you not to sit on it).

He doesn't read anything - he just skims through it, looking for
something he can cherry pick to make it look as if the author supports
him, when reading it in the surrounding context shows the opposite,

>> ... very slowly and controlled and later 
>>assuaged it away in a very controlled manner ...
>
>How did "the interference" get it back down 700 km, down in the Mantle
>back into the ringwoodite? Because that is where the water is now. It
>takes an omnipotent god, right.

He hasn't said anything about how much volume there was, and what
replaced it  when it was squirted out. Or what happened to that when
the water drained back in. Let alone what prevented it doing that for
the duration.

But don't expect these morons to think about their ad hoc nonsense.

They don't engage brain before operating mouth.

The actual question is, does he seriously believe this nonsense?

Or is he just being a deliberate joke?

Or both?

Whichever it is, there's something seriously wrong with him.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism

csiph-web