Gmail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
talk.origins
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
BBC the creationist at the museum
Options
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
   Messages 451 - 475 of 562 - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals) < Older  Newer >
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
TheMac37  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 3:18 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:18:12 -0800 (PST)
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 3:18 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Nov 4, 7:05 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

I think it is more accurate to say "there is no chemical or physical
law that explains this" than We cant explain it". To believe the
universe was created by God is to see it for what it is, not trying to
squeeze and prod everything into a materialistic box. Its great
watching you do everything you can to deny that one option of an
intelligent Creator. I`ll get the popcorn.

    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
TheMac37  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 3:21 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:21:58 -0800 (PST)
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 3:21 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Nov 4, 4:07 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:

...

read more »


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
TheMac37  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 3:26 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:26:42 -0800 (PST)
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 3:26 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Nov 4, 4:05 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:

Dude, Im serious..you are very funny. I love the little slurs at the
end. I am really laughing at these. I will keep up just to see them.
You are great.

    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
TheMac37  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 3:41 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:41:26 -0800 (PST)
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 3:41 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Nov 3, 11:12 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com>
wrote:

Id like you to show what properties of chemistry dictate the formation
of life. Set up an experiment with the exact chemicals needed, the
exact conditions (even though no one was there to measure them) and
leave it alone. Lets see what we get. The world will await your
results.

    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
TheMac37  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 3:57 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:57:52 -0800 (PST)
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 3:57 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Nov 3, 11:27 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:

All the evidence I need is your stunning silence on any of the
empirical evidence FOR a natural formation of life. You are critical
of me...and of my understanding of science, yet you do not bring any
positive evidence for your position. Answer some of my questions. How
do scientist disprove a Biblical point? What technique do scientist
use to empirically prove that life can form from purely natural
unaltered process? What can they show in the evidence to prove that it
happened the way they say? Is abiogenesis repeatable, testable,
observed...if so, where? What is the origin of the blood clotting?
What happened before this evolved? What property of hydrogen
eventually turns it into a banana, or you?

    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Free Lunch  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 4:06 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:06:30 -0600
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 4:06 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:57:52 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote in
<fe88d209-47dd-49e1-9dcf-bf2c08f31...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>:

Let's start out with the most fundamental evidence. The earth is known
to have been unable to sustain life at one time. It sustains it now in
wild variety, a variety that has demonstrably changed over the aeons.
Now, what alternative do you offer based on that evidence? Clearly not
Young Earth Creationism, unless you are claiming that God is a liar who
is intentionally misleading people with planted evidence. What is your
alternative?

    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Free Lunch  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 4:04 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:04:16 -0600
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 4:04 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:41:26 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote in
<305f0ff3-391f-42cc-957e-ea86b66e8...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:

Whatever gave you the idea that that tired old experiment objection was
a meaningful one? Certainly it could not have come from an honest
understanding of science, since the only ones who use it are people who
have a demonstrated hatred of the discoveries that science has made,
since those discoveries have shown that they teach doctrines that are
false.

Learn a little science. Gain a little humility. Your arrogance does
neither you nor your religion proud.


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Free Lunch  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 4:16 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:16:10 -0600
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 4:16 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:18:12 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote in
<ec5bd1ef-f372-4618-9e03-5c6ec28b1...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:

No, that is not accurate at all. Everything we know about chemical and
physical processes shows that it can happen. Our ignorance is not a
defense against reality.

>To believe the
>universe was created by God is to see it for what it is, not trying to
>squeeze and prod everything into a materialistic box.

The only squeezing being done here is you squeezing your eyes shut so
you are not forced to confront your lies about science.

>Its great
>watching you do everything you can to deny that one option of an
>intelligent Creator. I`ll get the popcorn.

Scientists don't bother do deny any options. They merely note in this
case that "intelligent design" is not defined in any manner and those
who are selling intelligent design have no scientific credentials, but
have learned a lot from Professor Harold Hill, before he met Marian.

You have not offered any reason to support your claims. You have no
evidence that fits your claims in a meaningful fashion. You have a
religious doctrine -- nothing else. Since you believe a number of
religious doctrines that have already been shown by evidence to be
false, why hold onto another one that has no support at all? Sure, you
seem willing to throw away Young Earth Creationism if that's what it
takes to finally get to a point where scientists and reasonably-educated
Christians cannot point to specific evidence to show you that you are
absolutely wrong, but you are now retreating to the "God of the Gaps"
explanation. Why bother? What possible reason, other than personal
arrogance, hubris, do you choose to reject evolution? Is God unable to
give you a soul if you are cousin to all the life on earth?


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Ron O  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 4:21 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:21:37 -0800 (PST)
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 4:21 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Nov 4, 8:18 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:

You must be on more than popcorn.  It isn't denial.  What you are
doing is denial.  Claiming that an option is worthless when it is, is
just a fact.  It could be true, but you can't demonstrate it in any
meaningful way, and you don't even have the weak evidence that the
abiogenesis researchers are stuck with.  When your option is worse off
than the option that you think is bogus, what does that tell you?  If
you are in R&D why don't you use the designer did it option?  Why
don't you use the supernatural at your company?  You probaby have some
small notion of why you can't use that inference (it has something to
do with the fact that the inference has a 100% failure rate for
validation).  Why should science be any differernt?  If you think that
the God did it option has a 100% failure rate, just put up one
validated example.  You can't go the the AIG, ICR or the Discovery
Institute to find such an example because there isn't one.  What is
the cause of disease?  Who changes the seasons?  Who throws those
thunderbolts?  Who makes babies?  etc.  You can't deny that the option
has been put forward countless times, but what happens every time we
figure out what is really happening?  That is what you are up against.

The guys that ran the intelligent design creationist scam tried to
figure out what the intelligent design junk was good for, and what did
they come up with?  The best one was the placebo effect.  Just
thinking that it was true might have a positive effect on people even
though it likely isn't true.  The most bogus one was that scientists
should stop researching things like abiogenesis because the answer is
God did it and there is no reason to research those type of things.
Really, they proposed using an assertion that has a 100% failure rate
to stop research into certain areas.  That has to be the most bogus
thing that you could possibly do with a worthless notion.  The best
thing to do is to keep working at the problem and find out what is
actually happening.  If you run your R&D outfit any differently why
are you still in business?  Face the facts, you don't use the
supernatural so why should science.

Ron Okimoto


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Free Lunch  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 4:22 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:22:12 -0600
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 4:22 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:09:29 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote in
<da5ebd38-40a9-49b4-9734-aa180aaa4...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>:

Are you looking for the word _species_?

    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Garamond Lethe  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 4:29 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:29:58 GMT
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 4:29 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 2009-11-05, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:

You didn't answer my question:  which bounds are we overstepping?

As to your response, I'm having difficulty following your chain of
reasoning here:  because you don't know how to measure events that
took place in the distance past, this somehow constrains what I'm
able to measure.  How does this work?

The experiment you outlined is frankly not that interesting.  We
attack this problem by looking at subproblems:  given the chemistry
of the early earth, how can we get self-replicating molecules and
lipid containers?  Given self-replicating molecules, how can we get
RNA?  Given RNA, how can we get DNA?  No stage will ever be completely
solved, which is a nice thing about science: there's always more work
to be done.  But there's nothing to be gained in watching the whole
chain occur in one test tube if the link of the chain have been
independently verified.

And no, I don't think the world is waiting for an answer.  We already
know what the answer is, and while filling in the details is a rewarding
hobby, there are very few people who can devote a career to this.  It's
not so much that this work is out of fashion as it really doesn't
obviously inform any other area of science, and so aside from the
astrobiologists there's not a whole of interest.  

(Contrast this with a field like evolution where an increased under-
standing can have immediate, tangible payoffs.  Thousands of people
build their career around studying evolution, and that number doesn't
look like it's going to be declining anytime soon.)

You were going to tell me about bounds....


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Baron Bodissey  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 4:38 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:38:41 -0800 (PST)
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 4:38 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Nov 4, 9:57 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dude, I hate to sound like a broken record but the answers to all your
questions are literally a click away. I understand that you do not
have a great record for reading comprehension (witness your complete
mangling of the scientific method), but if you would read the
Wikipedia article on abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Abiogenesis) you would have at least a minimal amount of knowledge
about the subject and especially, the different lines of evidence that
have led scientists to conclude that life began in a certain way.

For example, follow: Scientists know what kinds of chemical effects
living things have on the earth; evidence of those effects show up in
the geological record relatively shortly after the earth was formed.
Note also that the early atmosphere was nothing like the atmosphere of
today, it was composed of things like methane, ammonia, and carbon
dioxide, with little or no free oxygen. It would been instantly lethal
to most of today's life. Nevertheless, it seems those conditions are
favorable for the formation of various organic compounds. How those
compounds combined and became self-replicating is the step that hasn't
been worked out yet.

You asked in one post why isn't abiogenesis continuing to happen. The
answer is easy: The right conditions no longer exist; the origin of
life eventually destroyed (by changing the atmosphere) ) the
conditions that led to life.

Read the article. Learn something. _Then_ argue.

Baron Bodissey
Back off, man, I’m a scientist!
        – Ghostbusters


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Tim Norfolk  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 4:51 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Tim Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:51:22 -0800 (PST)
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 4:51 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Nov 4, 9:18 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:

However, saying that "God did it" isn't an answer at all, simply a way
to put the question into the category of heresy, which is what
religions have always done.

    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Garamond Lethe  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 5:03 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:03:30 GMT
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 5:03 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 2009-11-05, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 3, 11:27 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> All the evidence I need is your stunning silence on any of the
> empirical evidence FOR a natural formation of life. You are critical
> of me...and of my understanding of science, yet you do not bring any
> positive evidence for your position. Answer some of my questions.
> How
> do scientist disprove a Biblical point?

By observing the paths of the planets and trying to model them
mathematically.  You said as much yourself.

> What technique do scientist
> use to empirically prove that life can form from purely natural
> unaltered process?

By observing that living things are composed entirely of chemistry,
and that the chemical bonds reactions are not specific to life.
The belief in vitalism --- that there is something unique to the
chemistry of life --- was laid to rest in the 1930s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism

> What can they show in the evidence to prove that it
> happened the way they say?

Like this:

Eugene V. Koonin, "An RNA-making reactor for the origin of life".
PNAS  May 29, 2007   vol. 104  no. 22  9105-9106

<q>
Given the overwhelming complexity and difficulty of the origin of life problem,
the most astonishing thing about it is that life actually has evolved on at
least one planet in our universe (1). Indeed, it is entirely conceivable that
the origin of life involved a series of highly unlikely events, and a
substantial part of the explanation for why there is life on earth comes from
the anthropic principle (2), i.e., our planet just happens to be one of the
extremely rare parts of the universe where such a series of events was realized
(3). The anthropic world view, however, by no means frees the students of early
evolution from the obligation to explore all possible ways to decrease the
improbability of life by demonstrating plausible paths to one or another of the
milestones that need to be reached before life actually takes off. The paper by
Baaske et al. (4) in this issue of PNAS seems to do just that by describing a
simple abiotic system ensuring striking concentration of mono- and
polynucleotides in inorganic compartments that might be suitable hatcheries for
life.

Spatial compartmentalization is an essential condition for the functioning of
biological systems. In modern cells, compartmentalization is provided by an
elaborate, highly evolved system of membranes that serve to maintain the
integrity of the cell and, at the same time, provide effective means for
communication with the extracellular space via diverse transport and signaling
systems. For prebiological reactions to produce the minimal complexity required
for the origin of first life forms, effective abiogenic compartmentalization is
a must, given that high concentrations of organic molecules in the
entire primordial ocean are unrealistic, as shown by geochemical
extrapolations (5, 6). Russell and coworkers (7–9) have extensively
developed the scenario under which networks of inorganic compartments
formed, primarily, of iron sulfide and existing in the vicinity of
hydrothermal vents constitute a plausible, and perhaps the most likely,
cradle of life. Indeed, such formations, which exist at modern vents
(10) and have been recovered from fossils of various ages as well (11),
provide not only compartments with cell-like dimensions but also the
dissipative environment required for the origin of complex structures
in the form of thermal and electrochemical gradients and versatile
inorganic catalysts (FeS and NiS) for prebiological reactions (9, 12).
Moreover, the notion of the early stages of the evolution of life
occurring in an abiogenic compartmentalized environment is compatible
with the apparent nonhomology of the membranes and the respective
biosynthetic machinery in the two prokaryotic domains of life, bacteria
and archaea, leading to the proposal that the last universal cellular
ancestor (LUCA) was a noncellular, although compartmentalized, entity
(13).

Baaske et al. (4) provide a crucial boost to these scenarios of early evolution
by demonstrating in simulation studies that the temperature gradients existing
at hydrothermal vents turn the network of pores into a surprisingly effective
concentrating device. Two concomitant hydrodynamic processes, namely, thermal
convection and thermophoresis along the temperature gradient, are shown to
result in a >1,000-fold accumulation of mononucleotides near the bottom of a
plugged pore (Fig. 1). Concatenation of pores into networks and/or an increase
of the size of the molecules contained in them lead to a dramatic increase in
the extent of accumulation such that molar concentrations of ≈100-base RNA or
DNA would be readily reached. The concentration effect is shown to be
particularly pronounced in long, narrow, vertical clefts (pores with a high
aspect ratio), but concatenation of low-aspect-ratio pores into a network is
also predicted to yield extremely high concentrations of mono- and
polynucleotides.
</q>

> Is abiogenesis repeatable, testable,
> observed...

We study the components, and yes, the components are observable and repeatable.

> if so, where?

This is written up in the peer-reviewed literature.  There are also a few
popular books on the subject.  I had asked you before what level of technical
sophistication you were comfortable with and you declined to answer.

> What is the origin of the blood clotting?

Hmmmm....you're now in "throw whatever criticisms I've ever heard about
evolution at the wall and see what sticks" mode.

Before I chase down the relevant citations for you, could you work a little
to convince me that you're curious about the answer?  What have you read
about blood clotting?  Have you read the relevant wikipedia article on
coagulation?  Do you understand the chemistry involved?  Are you aware of
how it works in other animals?  Your answers to these questions will help
me answer your question.

> What happened before this evolved?

I would expect that lack of coagulation would put a pretty firm upper
bound on how large critters with circulatory systems could be.  But since
even the most rudimentary clotting system is a huge advantage in a population
with no clotting systems, evolution can take over as soon as it appears once
and continue to improve on it.  

> What property of hydrogen
> eventually turns it into a banana, or you?

The property that allows hydrogen be combined into heavier elements inside
of start by fusion, the property that allows these elements to respond to
gravity so that lots of them end up in planets, the property that a handful
of types of chemical reactions can give rise to complex systems where self-
reproducing molecules are formed, and the process of evolution.

If you like, you can worship a god whose understanding of this process is
circumscribed by your ignorance.  There's a long tradition of this.  Humans
put our limitations into our gods.  

Or you can worship a god who, when wanting a banana, figured out the simplest
thing to do was start the big bang and wait.  I find the latter god to be
much more interesting.


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
David Fritzinger  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 5:03 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:03:42 -1000
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 5:03 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
In article
<9c584682-1da9-4d48-a9e3-e3673286a...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

Why is it you ignore the points Bob is making?

    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Harry K  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 6:10 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:10:59 -0800 (PST)
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 6:10 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Nov 4, 8:03 pm, David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com>
wrote:

And why does he ignore my questions about the contradictions in the
bible.  Posted them three times now and one is just 2 posts above.

Harry K


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Harry K  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 6:17 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:17:03 -0800 (PST)
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 6:17 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Nov 4, 6:21 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 4, 4:07 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:

> > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:16:45 -0800 (PST), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com>
> > enriched this group when s/he wrote:

> > >On Nov 2, 11:13 pm, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Nov 2, 5:16 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:

<massive snip of stuff that should have been snipped long ago>

> > >I would claim that natural origin of live is so vastly improbable that
> > >it will one day be sen as the modern day flat earth theory.

> > You are an idiot.

> > --
> > Bob.

> > Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright
> > ideas from penetrating. Your bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little
> > sign of breaking down in ...

> > read more »

> Bozone...that is great. I love it. I will use that from now on.

Have an answer yet to my question?  Ya know: where did the animals and
birds come from, water or ground?

Having a problem with it are ya?

Harry


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
RAM  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 7:23 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: RAM <ramather...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 22:23:52 -0800 (PST)
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 7:23 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Nov 4, 8:57 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:

Let me get this straight I have to provide a preponderance of evidence
for abiogenesis.
About which I have almost no knowledge.  My response to you was about
your claims about science not being able to do scientific research on
historical events.  How did this require me (or anyone for that
matter) to provide evidence for abiogenesis.  There are other
historical areas of scientific research.  Abiogenesis is a legitimate,
relatively new scientific area of research and yet it must meet your
demands for convincing empirical evidence.  (Indeed if it were done
you would then claim that this is clear evidence of design since if
man can do it God must really have done it due to our complexity.)

Here I thought it was you who was coming here to inform us about real
science.  Here you are on Oct 22 your second whole day of posting and
you say:

 "I will simply ask to begin with any specific questions you have. In
other words where do you want me to start? I am a lifelong Lutheran,
and have spent the last 7 years or so studying creationism and its
claims in particular. I have a scientific background by trade, and am
interested in the proper use of the scientific method to explain
nature and its laws. So, just let me know how you would like me to
explain my beliefs."

I again note you said you have a scientific background.  This is why I
called you a bloviating bull shitter.  And I'm still correct in my
assessment. You said historical scientific analysis couldn't be done.
I said show me why.  You declare you have the scientific background
then you should be able to do it.  It is not my claim.  it is yours
and  you are supposed to support it with a critique of scientific
techniques, methods, strategies or theories that deal with historical
data and show me (and all of TO viewers why I am wrong) in a detailed
way from some extant professional peer reviewed article the flaws of
this historical overstepping.   Again, It is not my job to answer a
your questions about abiogenesis for which I am clearly not
qualified.

I also well know that bringing up abiogenesis is a distractor for your
abject scientific incompetence. I know that you can't deal with the
science in professional journals in a substantive way and I also know
that your historical claim is dead wrong.   You will remain a
bloviating bull shitter until you provide this scientifically reasoned
and detailed analysis.

> You are critical
> of me...and of my understanding of science, yet you do not bring any
> positive evidence for your position.

You first.

> Answer some of my questions. How
> do scientist disprove a Biblical point?

That will come and has been done here many times.  It is not disprove
but providing a preponderance of empirical evidence that reveals an
alternative hypothesis is clearly the best answer.

> What technique do scientist
> use to empirically prove that life can form from purely natural
> unaltered process?

You have got me.   But if you were a scientist you would drop prove.
A colleague friend in the another department (Chemistry) studied under
Prigogine.  He gave some lectures on Chemistry and self-organizing
phenomena and how creative Prigogine was even late in life.  If your
are willing to learn there is a place to start.

> What can they show in the evidence to prove that it
> happened the way they say?

They again cannot prove anything unless it is mathematics and even
then it still has assumptions.  All assumptions have limitations in
short there is no perfect set of assumptions.  All science is
conditioned by evidence and more evidence and more evidence.

> Is abiogenesis repeatable, testable,
> observed...if so, where?

I know you really aren't interested in learning about abiogenesis or
you would have read some of the extant scientific literature and you
would be able to critic it in some cursory fashion around those very
issues.

> What is the origin of the blood clotting?
> What happened before this evolved? What property of hydrogen
> eventually turns it into a banana, or you?

These questions are further evidence that you want to avoid your
claims about how much science you know.  They are not nearly as good
distractors as abiogenesis since it is a small general area of
biological research that gets more publicity than research monies.

You are willfully ignorant of professional peer reviewed scientific
literature and educate your self in a sectarian aniti-science
literature that is fraught with distortions and errors.  The real
issue remains however, you are a bloviating bull shitter motivated by
a reactionary dogmatic religious orientation that is septic to good
science education and public discourse.


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Ye Old One  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 8:33 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:33:30 GMT
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 8:33 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:18:12 -0800 (PST), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

But we can explain it.

>To believe the
>universe was created by God is to see it for what it is,

Wrong. To even want to invoke the supernatural is accepting defeat.
There may still be some things we cannot fully explain, but science
has answered so many questions it is not unreasonable to expect it to
solve any we still have - given time.

> not trying to
>squeeze and prod everything into a materialistic box.

But everything is materialistic.

> Its great
>watching you do everything you can to deny that one option of an
>intelligent Creator.

Be cause there is no evidence for one, not the need for one.

> I`ll get the popcorn.

--
Bob.

If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Ye Old One  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 8:37 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:37:46 GMT
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 8:37 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:26:42 -0800 (PST), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

I see, no answer to that.

>> --
>> Bob.

>> Have you ever wondered what your life would be like if you had had
>> enough oxygen at birth?

>Dude, Im serious..

But not very intelligent.

>you are very funny. I love the little slurs at the
>end. I am really laughing at these. I will keep up just to see them.
>You are great.

--
Bob.

    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Ye Old One  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 8:40 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:40:10 GMT
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 8:40 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:10:59 -0800 (PST), Harry K
<turnkey4...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Well, when a creationist is forced to address the massive
contradictions and inconsistencies of the bible it brings their faith
into question. Far easier for them to just ignore posts like your.

--
Bob.


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Ye Old One  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 8:46 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:46:36 GMT
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 8:46 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:41:26 -0800 (PST), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

That is, of course, exactly what was done with the Miller–Urey
experiment and those that have followed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment

--
Bob.

You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Ye Old One  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 8:57 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:57:50 GMT
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 8:57 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:09:29 -0800 (PST), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

But not all dogs can interbreed.

--
Bob.

You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Ye Old One  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 8:56 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:56:07 GMT
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 8:56 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:57:52 -0800 (PST), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

As far as we can gather from your posts, you do not have an
understanding of science.

>yet you do not bring any
>positive evidence for your position. Answer some of my questions. How
>do scientist disprove a Biblical point? What technique do scientist
>use to empirically prove that life can form from purely natural
>unaltered process? What can they show in the evidence to prove that it
>happened the way they say? Is abiogenesis repeatable, testable,
>observed...

Well it is observed. Repeatable - yes, in time it will be repeated.
Remember that science has had a few labs and 60 years trying to repeat
it whereas the nature has the whole earth and half a billion years to
do it.

>if so, where? What is the origin of the blood clotting?

Evolution.

>What happened before this evolved? What property of hydrogen
>eventually turns it into a banana, or you?

It is more a property of carbon.

--
Bob.

Have you ever wondered what your life would be like if you had had
enough oxygen at birth?


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Burkhard  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 11:24 am
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:24:54 +0000
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 11:24 am
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

You ever had a Chihuahua interbreed with a St Bernhard's?

    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Messages 451 - 475 of 562 < Older  Newer >
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2010 Google