 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
Veritas
Posts:250
 | | 09/29/2007 10:23 PM |
 Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/29/2007 7:35 PM
1) You state there can only be one way that proteins can be put together to make a viable cell. I called you on that point. Your answer was just pretty much calling me names.
You did not call me on that point ... you just made a claim that cannot be supported ... actually, you are just confused about chirality and where it shows up in nature. I defined it for you and exampled it in detail.
I'd love to take you to school on the nature of proteins, but that is why people go to college and take classes on biology that last for a semester or more.
So far, I've mentioned the role of RNA, proteins, molecules, amino acids, chirality, etc., while you've failed to make any descriptions that hold scientific merit. You just keep positing that proteins are not the only basis of life when biology has known that you can't get to life without proteins for at least 75 years. Do a Google on Oparin, Miller-Urey, Kenyon and track how central the role of proteins have been in the understanding that life is based on them. Do the homework yourself! I'll break the server at 85239.com if I try to put it all in here!
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/29/2007 7:35 PM
Then you call me an idiot for saying that you are just bringing up big words.
If I did, I am sorry for that. Not something that I intend to do, but you are very frustrating. 
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/29/2007 7:35 PM
Perhaps if you didn't use a measurement device as proof, then I'd be able to follow your logic.
So do you want me to be scientific, empirical, etc., or just make up stuff and dance around the fire like a savage on narcotics? What is scientific proof? What is scientific evidence? What is scientific reasoning?
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/29/2007 7:35 PM
I didn't say "Telescope" and say there. . . Done. Intelligent Design is disproven! I keep trying to keep my points short so you can stay on topic.
Please rephrase this ... it makes no sense.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/29/2007 7:35 PM
Please just address the two points above. I have numbered them, so they are easy to find. I'll repeat them, so you don't have to look up.
OK ... ThanX ... go ahead and look up for my answers.
| | | |
|
| | Copa Conscious
Posts:379
| | 09/30/2007 7:41 AM |
Alert | The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.
Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a non evolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless micro evolutionary and macro evolutionary studies. | | | |
|
| | Copa Conscious
Posts:379
| | 09/30/2007 7:46 AM |
Alert | | Scientific creationism proved a bust for two reasons. First, the "science" was ludicrously wrong. We have known for a long time that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old (the 6,000- to 10,000-year claim comes from biblical statements, including toting up the number of "begats") and that species were not created suddenly or simultaneously (not only do most species go extinct, but various groups appear at different times in the fossil record), and we have ample evidence for species' changing over time, as well as for fossils that illustrate large morphological transformations. Most risible was Scientific Creationism's struggle to explain the geological record as a result of a great flood: according to its account, "primitive" organisms such as fish would be found in the lowest layers, while mammals and more "advanced" species appeared in higher layers because they climbed hills and mountains to escape the rising waters. Why dolphins are found in the upper strata with other mammals is one of many facts that this ludicrous fantasy fails to explain. | | | |
|
| | Copa Conscious
Posts:379
| | 09/30/2007 9:12 AM |
Alert | | You cannot change the intelligent design mind through dialogue or conversation, because intelligent design -- however ingenious the superstructure of faux ideas with which it surrounds itself -- is a creature of the will and not the mind. | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/30/2007 4:14 PM |
Alert | Posted By Copa Conscious on 09/30/2007 7:41 AM
The origin of life remains very much a mystery,
Yes, that is correct, from a scientific point-of-view.
Posted By Copa Conscious on 09/30/2007 7:41 AM
but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry.
No, they have not, at least not on their own. Cite the experiment that was able to observe this happening without intelligent intervention?
Posted By Copa Conscious on 09/30/2007 7:41 AM
Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.
We are not surprised that these compounds are present wherever there is water ... a necessary component to the synthesis of "these compounds".
What were "those conditions" when the planet was young?
What are necessary pre-condition to just the synthesis of an amino acid? If you had any sense of what is required for this event, you would not have posted as you did.
Delicate compounds like amino acids surving a comet impact? Let's see ... a big dirty ball of ice hitting the planet at 50,000 mph and releasing more energy than all of our nuclear warheads combined? Yeah, I can see some little aqueous amino acids surviving all that. Talk about blind faith!
Posted By Copa Conscious on 09/30/2007 7:41 AM
Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life.
I'm not aware of creationists who want to negate ALL of evolution, just the part that claims that random undirected natural forces are responsible for the formation of life's most basic elements; namely DNA, RAN and proteins. Creationists generally accept the micro-evolutionary theory because it is supported by EVIDENCE. Do you know the difference?
Posted By Copa Conscious on 09/30/2007 7:41 AM
But even if life on earth turned out to have a non evolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless micro evolutionary and macro evolutionary studies.
No, you don't know the difference; but at least the alien theory is certainly more plausible than abiogenesis (look up the term at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/30/2007 4:23 PM |
Alert | Posted By Copa Conscious on 09/30/2007 9:12 AM
You cannot change the intelligent design mind through dialogue or conversation,
Hmmm ... what about the ID minds who were once Evolutionists? Consider Behe, Wells, Berlinski, etc.
But of course, YOU are completely objective and open-minded?
Posted By Copa Conscious on 09/30/2007 9:12 AM
because intelligent design -- however ingenious the superstructure of faux ideas
"faux ideas"? Please list them ... if you can. I doubt that you can given your habit of posting things from websites instead of coming up with it on your own.
Posted By Copa Conscious on 09/30/2007 9:12 AM
the superstructure of faux ideas with which it surrounds itself -- is a creature of the will and not the mind.
You should really try to define the terms "will" and "mind" ... I don't think that you really understand this terminology. Of course, your goal to insult and be imperious, versus contributing something intellectual to the discussion.
Copa, I really do not derive any pleasure from schooling you here in these forums, but I will not let you get away with such irresponsible skepticism without taking you to task on every ridiculous, close-minded and baseless thing that you say. Please do your homework, please be original in your thought and please drop the insults ... they are unbecoming of a thoughtful person. | | | |
|
|  | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/30/2007 4:36 PM |
Alert | Posted By Copa Conscious on 09/30/2007 7:46 AM
Scientific creationism proved a bust for two reasons.
First, why are you bringing up creationism in this discussion? It really has nothing to do with Intelligent Design.
OK ... now I will school you on Creationism.
Posted By Copa Conscious on 09/30/2007 7:46 AM
First, the "science" was ludicrously wrong. We have known for a long time that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old (the 6,000- to 10,000-year claim comes from biblical statements,
Yes, and that is based radiometric dating which assumes a number of things out of scientific necessity, namely that a number of things have not ever changed, like the earth's magnetic field, which is changing all of the time. It doesn't matter for me though, because as a system, it is for the most part consistent and very useful.
The thing that you're failing to understand about Creationism is that with an infinite and eternal God who created everything fully grown, the appearance of age is entirely normal. Some say that is a trick, but that is foolish. The fact that it cannot be explained does not make it a trick for the same reason that a mistake is not a lie.
So, humans grow up and figure out how to determine that a Curie is 3,770,000,000,000 disintegrations per second, and presto ... radiometric dating eventually becomes its own little science. Insert some reasonable, necessary, but less than reliable assumptions and never mind that it is only correct with respect to itself.
Anyway, I digress ... bottom line, whether or not God put it hear 10 seconds ago or 10 trillion years ago is not really the issue with respect to what the Bible says. The Bible, by the way, does not say anywhere how old the Earth is. Yes, theologians have established doctrine that lays claim to certain time frames from 6,000 years to 4.6 billion years. Yes, there are Creationists who believe that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old; in fact, I'm one of them.
disintegrations. | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/30/2007 4:50 PM |
Alert | ...just continuing the schooling in a fresh post...
Posted By Copa Conscious on 09/30/2007 7:46 AM
and that species were not created suddenly or simultaneously (not only do most species go extinct, but various groups appear at different times in the fossil record),
Yes, but there are no transitional forms, nor is there any evidence of chemical pathways between the forms, much less a theoretical basis for it.
More on simultaneous speciation below...
Posted By Copa Conscious on 09/30/2007 7:46 AM
and we have ample evidence for species' changing over time,
Yes, this is called micro-evolution and I don't know anyone who disputes the facts of this branch of biology.
Posted By Copa Conscious on 09/30/2007 7:46 AM
as well as for fossils that illustrate large morphological transformations.
Really? Which ones? To date, each one of those have fallen into one of two categories ... hypothesis or fraud. You'll believe anything you see on PBS, won't you?
Posted By Copa Conscious on 09/30/2007 7:46 AM
Most risible was Scientific Creationism's struggle to explain the geological record as a result of a great flood: according to its account, "primitive" organisms such as fish would be found in the lowest layers, while mammals and more "advanced" species appeared in higher layers because they climbed hills and mountains to escape the rising waters. Why dolphins are found in the upper strata with other mammals is one of many facts that this ludicrous fantasy fails to explain.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information on Creationism and The Great Flood from. I have a bookshelf full of titles by the most well known authors in that field and NONE of them would agree with what you just said. Could you quote one for us here? Maybe you could search the Internet ... I hear that you're pretty good at that. | | | |
|
| | ChimneyDuck
Posts:191
| | 09/30/2007 6:53 PM |
Alert | Let me quote you on the first post you have here.
"The originators of Intelligent Design DO NOT want it taught in public schools yet because they are not satisfied that it meets the rigorous demands of "scientific theory". In fact, they believe that they are at least a decade away from that. "
Since you brought up Kenyon as a good reference for me, he is one of the authors of "Of Pandas and People". An Intelligent Design textbook. One does not write a textbook on a subject if they are at least a decade away from teaching something. Especially if the book was written 20 years ago. Since he was one of your top 3 choices, I'm guessing he isn't out of favor in the ID community.
Just because some of the other possible forms of life, silicon, nitrogen, phosphorus has some constrictions, it doesn't mean it's not possible. I'd like to educate you on the subject but you can just read Stenger.
Perhaps since there is only one combination of proteins to create a cell and the proteins are set, perhaps you could just name the 239 proteins that are necessary for the one way that they fit together for life. Surely there is enough room on the server for 239 names, even superlong protein names. If not, perhaps you can just point me to the publication which states them.
| |
http://www.maricopabikeclub.com - Join us for a bicycle ride. | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/30/2007 8:42 PM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/30/2007 6:53 PM
Let me quote you on the first post you have here.
"The originators of Intelligent Design DO NOT want it taught in public schools yet because they are not satisfied that it meets the rigorous demands of "scientific theory". In fact, they believe that they are at least a decade away from that. "
Since you brought up Kenyon as a good reference for me, he is one of the authors of "Of Pandas and People". An Intelligent Design textbook. One does not write a textbook on a subject if they are at least a decade away from teaching something. Especially if the book was written 20 years ago. Since he was one of your top 3 choices, I'm guessing he isn't out of favor in the ID community.
Just because some of the other possible forms of life, silicon, nitrogen, phosphorus has some constrictions, it doesn't mean it's not possible. I'd like to educate you on the subject but you can just read Stenger.
Perhaps since there is only one combination of proteins to create a cell and the proteins are set, perhaps you could just name the 239 proteins that are necessary for the one way that they fit together for life. Surely there is enough room on the server for 239 names, even superlong protein names. If not, perhaps you can just point me to the publication which states them.
ChimneyDuck, list 239 protein names? You're high! If I could simply cut & paste from a digital source, maybe. I'm certainly not going to waste my time typing that list for you when I have two daughters to give attention to. Nor am I willing to do the extremely tedious work of collecting them from certain online databases that biochemists and molecular biologists use for a number of things in their profession.
As far as the reference goes, I believe it was in the Journal of cell Biology some time ago ... 12 years back or something like that. Anyway, I'm a math & physics person, so I do not get that journal. I may have a copy of that article, but if I do, it is packed away in the 20 boxes of "other stuff like that", that do not fit in either my home or campus office. I doubt that I'll find any time to dig it up for the sake of this forum ... it just doesn't rank high enough for me to expend energy like that. Too many other things to do.
What if we reduced the number to 40, like in the bacterial flagellum? The probability of assemblage is still at the point of absurd, just not nearly as absurd as 239 proteins; however, until you come into the knowledge that proteins do not self-assemble, but rather are assembled by other molecular machines, we cannot take this discussion any further. This is basic genetics and I am not willing to parrot a textbook for you.
Also, why should I bother trying to compete with Victor Stenger? Even if I had the exact same academic pedigree as he does, he has written 7 books and I am only working on 2 ... but he has also retired and I am still a good ways away from that. If I were in your shoes, I'm fairly certain that I would not listen to someone like me in a forum like this, over someone like Stenger.
Maybe we'll have progress on a different topic in the future. | | | |
|
| | ChimneyDuck
Posts:191
| | 09/30/2007 9:53 PM |
Alert | Ok, So did you abandon your #2 assertion that ID scientists don't want to teach ID?
Kenyon, who you brought up, is a prominent Intelligent Design professor writing textbook (Of Panda's and People). Censured for teaching ID in his courses. This is a fine example of someone who wants to wait 10 years or so to teach ID in classrooms?
Who published this book? Foundation for Thought and Ethics. A group with close ties with the Discovery Institute. William Dembski, a fellow at the Discovery institute is the academic editor for the publisher.
In the 1993 version the VP of the Discovery Institute, Stephen Meyer wrote a note to teachers in the book.
| |
http://www.maricopabikeclub.com - Join us for a bicycle ride. | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/30/2007 10:16 PM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/30/2007 9:53 PM
Ok, So did you abandon your #2 assertion that ID scientists don't want to teach ID?
I've abandoned nothing. When I get some answers to some of the very simple questions that I've asked you before, I'll address your assertion here.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/30/2007 9:53 PM
Kenyon, who you brought up, is a prominent Intelligent Design professor writing textbook (Of Panda's and People). Censured for teaching ID in his courses. This is a fine example of someone who wants to wait 10 years or so to teach ID in classrooms?
Kenyon is not a primary author of ID ... he has certainly joined the group, but he is not responsible for formulating ID. Regardless, censure alone is not necessarily a sign that someone is "bad". Also, you haven't indicated whether or not you've read the book. You sure have a lot to say about it, but you won't answer the question about whether you've read it.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/30/2007 9:53 PM
Who published this book? Foundation for Thought and Ethics. A group with close ties with the Discovery Institute. William Dembski, a fellow at the Discovery institute is the academic editor for the publisher.
In the 1993 version the VP of the Discovery Institute, Stephen Meyer wrote a note to teachers in the book.
So what? The establishment of science, specifically the biological sciences, simply do not want to entertain ideas that deviate from the mainstream. Anyone who dares walk that path is some sort of heretic. Sad.
| | | |
|
| | ChimneyDuck
Posts:191
| | 10/01/2007 6:29 AM |
Alert | Dude, who cares if I read the book or not? You state that these people don't want it taught. Did I say it was a bad thing to teach ID? Go ahead take the time to read my posts, I have said nothing bad about ID. Your #2 misconception about ID was that they didn't want it taught. That is what I'm trying to address here. Yet they write textbooks, Are the science advisors of textbooks, write forwards in textbooks.
One of the founders of the ID movement, and leader of the Discovery Institute, Johnson wrote "What educators in Kansas and elsewhere should be doing is to 'teach the controversy'. He also was the author of the Santorum Amendment which promotes the teaching of ID as part of the "No child left behind act".
Should I go on?
| |
http://www.maricopabikeclub.com - Join us for a bicycle ride. | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 10/01/2007 7:10 AM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/01/2007 6:29 AM
Dude, who cares if I read the book or not? You state that these people don't want it taught. Did I say it was a bad thing to teach ID? Go ahead take the time to read my posts, I have said nothing bad about ID. Your #2 misconception about ID was that they didn't want it taught. That is what I'm trying to address here. Yet they write textbooks, Are the science advisors of textbooks, write forwards in textbooks.
One of the founders of the ID movement, and leader of the Discovery Institute, Johnson wrote "What educators in Kansas and elsewhere should be doing is to 'teach the controversy'. He also was the author of the Santorum Amendment which promotes the teaching of ID as part of the "No child left behind act".
Should I go on?
I have video interviews of them saying the opposite.
Show me the verbiage of the amendment.
If teaching of ID is not "bad", then why are you so upset?
"Teaching the controversy" is not necessarily "teaching ID" ... there is plenty of turmoil in the research literature that represents a challenge to Darwinian evolution.
Should you go on? Don't ask me a question like that! You don't care what I think in the first place. | | | |
|
| | ChimneyDuck
Posts:191
| | 10/01/2007 9:01 AM |
Alert | Dembski, the originator of the probability question says this.
"My commitment is to see intelligent design flourish as a scientific research program. To do that, I need a new generation of scholars willing to consider this, because the older generation is largely hidebound. So I would like to see textbooks, certainly at the college level and even at the high school level, which reframe introductory biology within a design paradigm." (Houston Press, December 14, 2000)
http://www.houstonpress.com/2000-12-14/news/in-god-s-country/full if you want a link.
Want me to find another prominent ID scientist that misleads us into thinking that they want to teach ID in schools?
No, I do care what you think. I just want you to admit that you are wrong. At least give admit to #2 being wrong. I really can't see how you can stand by that one. I really don't care if they have videos that state that they don't want it taught, after their efforts in trying to get it taught, that just makes them hypocrites. | |
http://www.maricopabikeclub.com - Join us for a bicycle ride. | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 10/01/2007 9:15 AM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/01/2007 9:01 AM
Dembski, the originator of the probability question says this.
"My commitment is to see intelligent design flourish as a scientific research program. To do that, I need a new generation of scholars willing to consider this, because the older generation is largely hidebound. So I would like to see textbooks, certainly at the college level and even at the high school level, which reframe introductory biology within a design paradigm." (Houston Press, December 14, 2000)
http://www.houstonpress.com/2000-12-14/news/in-god-s-country/full if you want a link.
I guess that they are now satisfied with the theoretical aspects of ID ... my videos predate 2000 and I haven't followed everything they say, other than what they write in books, for a good long while now. I guess that some do and some don't.
I've been waiting for the "rest of the theory" to be published ... specifically the part that makes predictions. That's the theoretical piece-of-the-puzzle that I'm waiting for before I call it a theory. It is certainly scientific, given its features and tools, but theories also need to predict stuff.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/01/2007 9:01 AM
Want me to find another prominent ID scientist that misleads us into thinking that they want to teach ID in schools?
Again, why do you ask the question when you do not care what my answer is?
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/01/2007 9:01 AM
No, I do care what you think.
OK
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/01/2007 9:01 AM
I just want you to admit that you are wrong.
Will that really make you happy?
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/01/2007 9:01 AM
I really don't care if they have videos that state that they don't want it taught, after their efforts in trying to get it taught, that just makes them hypocrites.
What if they've changed their minds? Are you a hypocrite for saying something and then changing your mind at a later date? | | | |
|
| | joe_2007
Posts:83
| | 10/08/2007 4:38 PM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/30/2007 9:53 PM
Ok, So did you abandon your #2 assertion that ID scientists don't want to teach ID?
Kenyon, who you brought up, is a prominent Intelligent Design professor writing textbook (Of Panda's and People). Censured for teaching ID in his courses. This is a fine example of someone who wants to wait 10 years or so to teach ID in classrooms?
You make it sound like Kenyon started out at the pulpit. He was the foremost biochemical researcher, who after years of research co-authored the book "Biochemical Predestination" back in 1969. This book followed along his atheistic research approach to finding a purely naturalistic explanation for the first protien structures. As you like to say, "Self-assembly" from chemical affinities.
After years more research, he came to the completely scientific conclusion that the evidence was so stacked against his original hypothesis, that he had to change it. Looking at all the evidence that he had before him, he was more qualified than anyone to say that it just can't happen without intellegent intervention. So as any good scientist is supposed to do, he changed his hypothesis to the one that all his new eveidence pointed to, ID.
As for being censured, here is a little article. http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9401/scopes.html
| | | |
|
| | ChimneyDuck
Posts:191
| | 10/09/2007 8:59 AM |
Alert | Joe, the purpose of my bringing in Kenyon (and the others) was to state that he was trying to teach ID, which if you read Veritas first post he said that the ID scientists did not want to teach it.
Veritas, about the Hypocrisy comment. One is only a hypocrite if you say one thing and do another at the same time. One can change their mind and not be a hypocrit. If you think they changed their minds, then that is good enough for me. | |
http://www.maricopabikeclub.com - Join us for a bicycle ride. | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 10/09/2007 9:22 AM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 10/09/2007 8:59 AM
Joe, the purpose of my bringing in Kenyon (and the others) was to state that he was trying to teach ID, which if you read Veritas first post he said that the ID scientists did not want to teach it.
Veritas, about the Hypocrisy comment. One is only a hypocrite if you say one thing and do another at the same time. One can change their mind and not be a hypocrit. If you think they changed their minds, then that is good enough for me.
Chimney, it is simply my guess (based on your assertion) that they've changed their minds based on the sum of all of the comments that I've heard them make or have read about them making, along with the stack of books that "they" have written.
I have not double-checked their latest and greatest ideas because I've just been too busy, and I've been waiting on the predictive aspects of the theory to surface so that I can be satisfied as a scientist with the theoretical framework. That's all that it's technically missing in order to satisfy the general requirements of "theory".
I also suspect that they're taking a different tactic given the number of Creationists who are hijacking the concept because it favors their own paradigms. I am actually in favor of both ID and Creationism, but not in the same manner much less for the same reasons as your typical "fundamentalist".
Anyway, I would also like to see both ideas taught in school along with every other idea, within reason; but there seems to be too much fear of letting all of the major ideas stand or fall on their own merit. Ideally, this would be done in a setting where both parents and kids get the same exposure to those ideas and then let the chips fall where they may.
Also, it should be made clear that ID only disputes the evolutionary origin of things and that evolution barely passes as a low-grade hypothesis with regard to its claims about the origin of living things. Once you have an organism, evolutionary theory more than adequately describes changes within the species. (I don't remember whether we covered that ground or not in previous posts.)
I will take some time in the very near future to reacquaint myself with the latest mindset of the ID camp (Discovery Institute) and come back to the forum with that evidence. This was really more of a "side issue" in the first place as I was most interested in the scientific aspects of the debate rather than the political; but it's worthy of comment to and we should definitely "go there". | | | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|