24 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerNow you're making a definite statement about how possible the event is. It is not shifting the burden of proof to ask you to prove your claim. All I am saying is that maybe you're right, and maybe you aren't. I don't think you are, but I'd be happy to listen to your argument, assuming it's not copy-pasted.
[b]How about this; it's possible that it's possible
True. But what I am saying is that the posssibility is so small that it makes it an impossibility. If something had a 0.0000000001% chance of happening you could rightly say that there is a possibility, but you should also be able to figure out that it is more of an impossibility.[/b]
Impossibility is not the same as unlikely. Please don't say something is impossible when you admit it is possible.
24 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungCheck out this of he tries that "it's your word against a Ph.D.
Now you're making a definite statement about how possible the event is. It is not shifting the burden of proof to ask you to prove your claim. All I am saying is that maybe you're right, and maybe you aren't. I don't th ...[text shortened]... don't say something is impossible when you admit it is possible.
project Steve:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp
the List :
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp
24 Jun 05
2 edits
Originally posted by frogstompI love Project Steve. I wish my name were Steve.
Check out this of he tries that "it's your word against a Ph.D.
project Steve:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp
the List :
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp
Hell if ICR and the Discovery Instute can count PhD's in education, history, and theology as "experts" on their side of the creation issue then an economist should add his name to the opposition. Not that our side really needs the extra help. I mean what's another name added when the number of scientists through the world in the life sciences alone who support evolution outnumber the YEC's and IDer's well over 10,000 to 1?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
24 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompIt was due chiefly to Louis Pasteur that the occurrence of abiogenesis in the microscopic world was disproved as much as its occurrence in the macroscopic world. If organic matter were first sterilized and then prevented from contamination from without, putrefaction did not occur, and the matter remained free from microbes. The nature of sterilization, and the difficulties in securing it, as well as the extreme delicacy of the manipulations necessary, made it possible for a very long time to be doubtful as to the application of the phrase omne vivum e vivo to the microscopic world, and there still remain a few belated supporters of abiogenesis. Subjection to the temperature of boiling water for, say, half an hour seemed an efficient mode of sterilization, until it was discovered that the spores of bacteria are so involved in heat-resisting membranes, that only prolonged exposure to dry, baking heat can be recognized as an efficient process of sterilization. Moreover, the presence of bacteria, or their spores, is so universal that only extreme precautions guard against a re-infection of the sterilized material. It was thus concluded definitely that all known living organisms arise only from pre-existing living organisms.
Cant answer the post can you? stick that sham Ph.D. argument.
Do you have a clue to how many Ph.D.'s back the TOE?
and it is dead on topic, The original system produced life from non-life and that fact won't change whether or not some chemist makes life in a test tube.
And I rather hope you don't response to ...[text shortened]... n , do you have to go to such extremes to show your ignorance of science too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
24 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat same article does not disagree that life may have originally arisen via abiogenesis. Your quotes do not apply to modern abiogenesis theory. Not only can't you argue your own case, halfwit, but your copy pasting doesn't even support your position.
It was due chiefly to Louis Pasteur that the occurrence of abiogenesis in the microscopic world was disproved as much as its occurrence in the macroscopic world. If organic matter were first sterilized and then prevented from contamination from without, putrefaction did not occur, and the matter remained free from microbes. The nature of sterilization, and ...[text shortened]... nisms arise only from pre-existing living organisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
24 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionbefore I attend to that latest ,, likely distortion, i have a cool site that thats metaphoricly states whats wrong with all the Monkeying around with probability theory.
I love Project Steve. I wish my name were Steve.
Hell if ICR and the Discovery Instute can count PhD's in education, history, and theology as "experts" on their side of the creation issue then an economist should add his name to the ...[text shortened]... evolution outnumber the YEC's and IDer's well over 10,000 to 1?
http://homeschool.resource.ods.org/20020621.HTM
As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.
,,,,scentific american august 2002...
the site has the actual program ,,, used to toy around with similar programs to calculate random game worlds.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
24 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstomp
Cant answer the post can you? stick that sham Ph.D. argument.
Do you have a clue to how many Ph.D.'s back the TOE?
and it is dead on topic, The original system produced life from non-life and that fact won' ...[text shortened]... such extremes to show your ignorance of science too.
24 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerfrom a deeper reading of that site you quoted
It was due chiefly to Louis Pasteur that the occurrence of abiogenesis in the microscopic world was disproved as much as its occurrence in the macroscopic world. If organic matter were first sterilized and then prevented from contamination from without, putrefaction did not occur, and the matter remained free from microbes. The nature of sterilization, and ...[text shortened]... nisms arise only from pre-existing living organisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
On the early Earth it is likely that the ocean had a volume of 1 x 10^24 litres. Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10^-6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992 [23]), then there are roughly 1 x 10^50 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 10^31) could be produced in a under a year, let alone a million years. The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40 (and remember, our replicator could be synthesized on the very first trial).
thats the scale of the original test tube.. and the result is life from non-life.
Pasteur's proved life didnt spring out of nowhere, and as far as I know nobody is saying that it does,, except creationists.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
24 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompNo. He proved that life cannot be produced from non-life. And that is exactly what Abiogenisis theory states. Which means life cannot be produced from non-life. Period.
from a deeper reading of that site you quoted
On the early Earth it is likely that the ocean had a volume of 1 x 10^24 litres. Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10^-6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992 [23]), then there are roughly 1 x 10^50 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases ( ...[text shortened]... owhere, and as far as I know nobody is saying that it does,, except creationists.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
24 Jun 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI was responding to Frogstomps "universal test tube".
That same article does not disagree that life may have originally arisen via abiogenesis. Your quotes do not apply to modern abiogenesis theory. Not only can't you argue your own case, halfwit, but your copy pasting doesn't even support your position.
24 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou don't even know what he was doing , do you.?
No. He proved that life cannot be produced from non-life. And that is exactly what Abiogenisis theory states. Which means life cannot be produced from non-life. Period.
He was trying to find out how bacteria growth occured after pasteurization . One suggestion was spontaneous creation.
That's what he disproved. and that was all.
Only somebody totally ignorant on chemistry would try to extend that into modern abiogenesis theories!
Try again! It's getting easier to answer you as I didn't even need to check a site for that info.
edit: oh yeah,,r another of your punk attempts at turn around doesn't impress me . PERIOD!!!
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
24 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompIt appears that the field of molecular biology will falsify Darwinism. An estimated 100,000 different proteins are used to construct humans alone. Furthermore, one million species are known, and as many as 10 million may exist. Although many proteins are used in most life forms, as many as 100 million or more protein variations may exist in all plant and animal life. According to Asimov:
You don't even know what he was doing , do you.?
He was trying to find out how bacteria growth occured after pasteurization . One suggestion was spontaneous creation.
That's what he disproved. and that was all.
Only somebody totally ignorant on chemistry would try to extend that into modern abiogenesis ...[text shortened]... s getting easier to answer you as I didn't even need to check a site for that info.
Now, almost each of all the thousands of reactions in the body is catalyzed by a specific enzyme ... a different one in each case ... and every enzyme is a protein, a different protein. The human body is not alone in having thousands of different enzymes—so does every other species of creature. Many of the reactions that take place in human cells also happen in the cells of other creatures. Some of the reactions, indeed, are universal, in that they take place in all cells of every type. This means that an enzyme capable of catalyzing a particular reaction may be present in the cells of wolves, octopi, moss, and bacteria, as well as in our own cells. And yet each of these enzymes, capable though it is of catalyzing one particular reaction, is characteristic of its own species. They may all be distinguished from one another. It follows that every species of creature has thousands of enzymes and that all those enzymes may be different. Since there are over a million different species on earth, it may be possible—judging from the enzymes alone—that different proteins exist by the millions! (Asimov, 1962, pp. 27–28).
Even using an unrealistically low estimate of 1,000 steps required to “evolve” the average protein (if this were possible) implies that many trillions of links were needed to evolve the proteins that once existed or that exist today. And not one clear transitional protein that is morphologically and chemically in between the ancient and modern form of the protein has been convincingly demonstrated. The same problem exists with fats, nucleic acids, carbohydrates and the other compounds that are produced by, and necessary for, life.
Scientists have yet to discover a single molecule that has “learned to make copies of itself” (Simpson, 1999, p. 26). Many scientists seem to be oblivious of this fact because
Articles appearing regularly in scientific journals claim to have generated self-replicating peptides or RNA strands, but they fail to provide a natural source for their compounds or an explanation for what fuels them... this top-down approach... [is like] a caveman coming across a modern car and trying to figure out how to make it. “It would be like taking the engine out of the car, starting it up, and trying to see how that engine works” (Simpson, 1999, p.26).
Some bacteria, specifically phototrophs and lithotrophs, contain all the metabolic machinery necessary to construct most of their growth factors (amino acids, vitamins, purines and pyrimidines) from raw materials (usually O2, light, a carbon source, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur and a dozen or so trace minerals). They can live in an environment with few needs but first must possess the complex functional metabolic machinery necessary to produce the compounds needed to live from a few types of raw materials. This requires more metabolic machinery in order to manufacture the many needed organic compounds necessary for life. Evolution was much more plausible when life was believed to be a relatively simple material similar to, in Haeckel’s words, the “transparent viscous albumin that surrounds the yolk in the hen’s egg” which evolved into all life today. Haeckel taught the process occurred as follows:
By far the greater part of the plasm that comes under investigation as active living matter in organisms is metaplasm, or secondary plasm, the originally homogeneous substance of which has acquired definite structures by phyletic differentiations in the course of millions of years (1905, p.126).
Abiogenesis is only one area of research which illustrates that the naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed, and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability. Numerous origin-of-life researchers, have lamented the fact that molecular biology during the past half-a-century has not been very kind to any naturalistic origin-of-life theory. Perhaps this explains why researchers now are speculating that other events such as panspermia or an undiscovered “life law” are more probable than all existing terrestrial abiogenesis theories, and can better deal with the many seemingly insurmountable problems of abiogenesis.
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
24 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerNone of that means squat , since life didnt start out as a Human or even a creationist.
It appears that the field of molecular biology will falsify Darwinism. An estimated 100,000 different proteins are used to construct humans alone. Furthermore, one million species are known, and as many as 10 million may exist. Although many proteins are used in most life forms, as many as 100 million or more protein variations may exist in all plant an ...[text shortened]... he many seemingly insurmountable problems of abiogenesis.
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
All it does show is once life originated it manufactured proteins to fit the evolutionary changes it was undergoing.
at least you could try and force me to have to look something up , kiddo ,,, you're getting to be no challenge
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
24 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompAll it does show is once life originated it manufactured proteins to fit the evolutionary changes it was undergoing.
None of that means squat , since life didnt start out as a Human or even a creationist.
All it does show is once life originated it manufactured proteins to fit the evolutionary changes it was undergoing.
at least you could try and force me to have to look something up , kiddo ,,, you're getting to be no challenge
Your statement is as viable as Snowwhite and the seven dwarfs. It is all based on fantasy and does not have a shread of evidence. Go ahead and believe it. But just don't go on blabbering that it is a fact.
24 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerIm not going to dig into that muckhole you just posted to trace down the garbage conclusions in it.
It appears that the field of molecular biology will falsify Darwinism. An estimated 100,000 different proteins are used to construct humans alone. Furthermore, one million species are known, and as many as 10 million may exist. Although many proteins are used in most life forms, as many as 100 million or more protein variations may exist in all plant an ...[text shortened]... he many seemingly insurmountable problems of abiogenesis.
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
You still haven't dented life from non-life.
And you can't no matter how many crackpot sites you quote from.