| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
11 Jun 2005 09:34:14 AM |
| Object: |
More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050609225715.htm
Simple underlying physical and chemical properties lead to delicate
structures like the compound honeycomb eye of fruit flies or nephron
structure of the kidneys.
From the article:
"Interestingly, Neph1 and Nephron are more like Roughest and Hibris than
they are like any other protein found in mammals."
"As the proteins appear on the surface of the cells, the laws of physics
kick in to move the support cells into positions determined by the
energy of attraction. Because Roughest is strongly attracted to Hibris,
but not to other Roughest molecules, the support cells are attracted to
the surfaces of the primary cells but not to each other...At the end of
the process, a neat one-cell-thick hexagonal wall of support cells
surrounds the primary cells."
Of course, by contrast all that Creationists and Idiotic Design
Theorists offer as an alternative is, "Gawd did it!"
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "Alfred A. Aburto Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
11 Jun 2005 10:03:18 AM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050609225715.htm
Simple underlying physical and chemical properties lead to delicate
structures like the compound honeycomb eye of fruit flies or nephron
structure of the kidneys.
From the article:
"Interestingly, Neph1 and Nephron are more like Roughest and Hibris than
they are like any other protein found in mammals."
"As the proteins appear on the surface of the cells, the laws of physics
kick in to move the support cells into positions determined by the
energy of attraction. Because Roughest is strongly attracted to Hibris,
but not to other Roughest molecules, the support cells are attracted to
the surfaces of the primary cells but not to each other...At the end of
the process, a neat one-cell-thick hexagonal wall of support cells
surrounds the primary cells."
Of course, by contrast all that Creationists and Idiotic Design
Theorists offer as an alternative is, "Gawd did it!"
Very interesting.
Learning stops when we say "God did it" ... Many need God, but we
shouldn't ever stop learning ...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
11 Jun 2005 04:37:08 PM |
|
|
Much detail but no evidence for abiogenesis. If natural processes lent
themselves toward self-creation of life then that means scientists can
do it in the lab. The fact is you and others over-simplify nature in
order to make abiogenesis palatable. And so far you have failed
miserably, except you've constructed great fictional material.
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rolf" |
|
| Title: SV: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
12 Jun 2005 10:05:28 AM |
|
|
<mccoy@sunset.net> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:1118525828.267141.227450@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Much detail but no evidence for abiogenesis. If natural processes lent
themselves toward self-creation of life then that means scientists can
do it in the lab. The fact is you and others over-simplify nature in
order to make abiogenesis palatable. And so far you have failed
miserably, except you've constructed great fictional material.
JM
Plenty of response to this has already been posted, but I still would like
to offer my two cents:
If he really means what he says, he must be suffering from severe brain
damage, and is nor responsible for his thoughts. He doesn't know what he is
thinking, maybe he even is unaware that he is thinking, or, but of course -
he just isn't thinking.
In the recent 46664 Mandela Hiv/Aids concert held in Tromsų, Norway, in a
short interview with Gro Harlem Brundtland, former premier minister of
Norway, former head of WHO, told about how she had been visited by the
president of South Africa, in Davos, Switzerland, five years ago. He had
said, You know, Gro, that the cause of AIDS is poverty. She had replied that
poverty obviously was a contributing factor, but that the cause still was a
virus. Now, I do not know if the president has changed his mind, but Gro
commented by saying that the magnitude of the HIV problem is so great that
people just don't want to know, don't want to think about it.
The ostrich used to be used as a metaphor for the attitude of not wanting to
see the truth.
In the same way, the driving force behind fundamentalistic creationism is
simply that the believers are seeing only two options:
"God is alive, so the bible must be true" vs. "science is right, and god is
dead."
Therefore, they are forced by their faith to defend the bible at all costs.
The second alterantive is just too horrible to consider, and they are quite
unable to realize that there may exists a third alterantive: That they are
deluded, brainwashed, conditioned to adopt literalism. Unable to understand
what the bible is really about. And I am not going to tell them.
But as for JM, by stating that
If natural processes lent themselves toward self-creation of life then
that means scientists can do it in the lab.,
unless my observations regarding his mental makeup are indeed correct, he is
evidently demonstrating that he has no clue whatsoever with regard to nature
and science. Seems that reason has no chance of penetrating the thick armour
of religious ignorance encasing his mental faculties.
Today, one hundred and fifty years after Darwin, with regard to complex
processes that for all we know may have begun billions of years ago anywhere
in the universe, continuing in the galaxy and the solar system, only to be
completed on this planet, maybe in the deep of the oceans, ought not people
know and understand that such a statement only reflects gross ignorance and
stupidity, or worse?
In other words, to spell it out for even the most stupid: Science is not at
all over-smplifying nature. On the contrary, science knows and understands
that it is quite improbable that it ever may be possible to repeat anything
even approaching events on such a grand scale. No matter how often the same
silly argument is being recycled: "You cannot repeat abiogenesis in your
labs, because abiogenesis is impossible."
Rolf, Norway
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
11 Jun 2005 05:05:04 PM |
|
|
<mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:1118525828.267141.227450@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Much detail but no evidence for abiogenesis.
It is *supporting evidence*.
If natural processes lent
themselves toward self-creation of life then that means scientists can
do it in the lab.
If the exact conditions were known, probably.
The fact is you and others over-simplify nature in
order to make abiogenesis palatable.
No one is oversimplifying anything.
And so far you have failed
miserably, except you've constructed great fictional material.
And your evidence that it is "fictional"?
Boikat
--
"Boikat, you are the dung beetle of T.O.
No need to say who is the dung"
Phillip Brown
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
18 Jun 2005 01:10:28 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Much detail but no evidence for abiogenesis. If natural processes lent
themselves toward self-creation of life then that means scientists can
do it in the lab. The fact is you and others over-simplify nature in
order to make abiogenesis palatable. And so far you have failed
miserably, except you've constructed great fictional material.
JM
I suppose that when scientists do finally make a living cell completely
from scratch, you'll take that as evidence for design.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dylan" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
12 Jun 2005 07:42:49 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Much detail but no evidence for abiogenesis. If natural processes lent
themselves toward self-creation of life then that means scientists can
do it in the lab. The fact is you and others over-simplify nature in
order to make abiogenesis palatable. And so far you have failed
miserably, except you've constructed great fictional material.
JM
JM, how do you know the material is fictional?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
12 Jun 2005 08:52:27 AM |
|
|
In article <1118525828.267141.227450@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
mccoy@sunset.net says...
Much detail but no evidence for abiogenesis.
Firstly, I said nothing about abiogenesis. It does provide evidence that
some structures used by life may not be nearly as complicated as they
appear. That indirectly suggests that abiogenesis is more plausible,
despite your dogmatic denials.
If natural processes lent
themselves toward self-creation of life then that means scientists can
do it in the lab.
Perhaps they could perform some of the reactions and perhaps they will
but it's a straw man that has nothing to do with the present article.
The fact is you and others over-simplify nature
The fact is that you oversimplify evolution and overcomplicate
abiogenesis.
in
order to make abiogenesis palatable. And so far you have failed
miserably, except you've constructed great fictional material.
I've failed at nothing, fool. The article cited is not fiction and your
assertion otherwise marks you as a delusional ignoramus.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
12 Jun 2005 02:34:56 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jun 2005 14:37:08 -0700,
mccoy@sunset.net <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote:
Much detail but no evidence for abiogenesis. If natural processes lent
themselves toward self-creation of life then that means scientists can
do it in the lab. The fact is you and others over-simplify nature in
order to make abiogenesis palatable. And so far you have failed
miserably, except you've constructed great fictional material.
And when scientists do manage it in the lab, you'll cry out "You see, life
needs designers."
Lots of things can't be done in a lab. Labs are not the be-all and end-all
of science.
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
12 Jun 2005 04:17:14 AM |
|
|
On 11 Jun 2005 14:37:08 -0700, wrote:
Much detail but no evidence for abiogenesis. If natural processes lent
themselves toward self-creation of life then that means scientists can
do it in the lab.
It doesn't mean that at all. At best it means that it would be
potentially possible in the future.
The fact is you and others over-simplify nature in
order to make abiogenesis palatable. And so far you have failed
miserably, except you've constructed great fictional material.
JM
Palatable for whom? Do you know of any objective, scientific reason
to reject it?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
12 Jun 2005 06:35:48 AM |
|
|
Yes, there is everyday evidence that intelligent being can construct
code. But there is no evidence that random events or chemicals out of
a pond could do so. Since there is plenty of evidence for
intelligence, and no evidence for non-intelligence thus believe in an
intelligent God is much more rational than abiogenesis.
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
12 Jun 2005 09:12:02 AM |
|
|
<mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:1118576148.856065.157450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Yes, there is everyday evidence that intelligent being can construct
code. But there is no evidence that random events or chemicals out of
a pond could do so.
Who says (definitively) that life arose out of chemicals on a pond?
Since there is plenty of evidence for
intelligence, and no evidence for non-intelligence thus believe in an
intelligent God is much more rational than abiogenesis.
Please present the evidence that support the assertion of the existance of
God which doe not rely on the Bible (since that would boil down to circular
reasoning) or appeal to arguments from incredulity, and which can be
independantly tested and verified..
Boikat
--
<42><
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "H,R.Gruemm" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
12 Jun 2005 01:59:28 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<1118576148.856065.157450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
Yes, there is everyday evidence that intelligent being can construct
code.
And there is everyday evidence that intelligent beings are material
and have brains. Ever met a different being ?
But there is no evidence that random events or chemicals out of
a pond could do so.
Yes, there is. Tierra etc.
Since there is plenty of evidence for
intelligence,
For intelligent human beings, not for any other kind of intelligence.
and no evidence for non-intelligence thus believe in an
intelligent God is much more rational than abiogenesis.
The same line of argument can be used to show from the above that said
intelligent God is material and has a brain.
IOW, there is no evidence that *immaterial* beings exist, and thus
there is also no evidence that *immaterial* beings can construct code.
HRG.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
12 Jun 2005 01:07:27 PM |
|
|
In article <1118576148.856065.157450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
Yes, there is everyday evidence that intelligent being can construct
code. But there is no evidence that random events or chemicals out of
a pond could do so.
And would such a confirmed creationist admit that such evidence did
exist, even if it happened right in front of him?
Evidence is that creationists can ignore evidence which runs counter to
their religious faith and create evidence out of thin air to support
that faith.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
12 Jun 2005 11:20:05 AM |
|
|
On 12 Jun 2005 04:35:48 -0700, wrote:
Yes, there is everyday evidence that intelligent being can construct
code. But there is no evidence that random events or chemicals out of
a pond could do so.
There is quite a bit of evidence for the possibility of abiogenesis;
using your very own logic, we have no evidence of any intelligence
capable of creating life.
Since there is plenty of evidence for
intelligence,
But none for any intelligence capable of creating life.
and no evidence for non-intelligence
You don't think there is evidence for natural processes?
thus believe in an
intelligent God is much more rational than abiogenesis.
Obviously not.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "r norman" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
12 Jun 2005 07:58:42 AM |
|
|
On 12 Jun 2005 04:35:48 -0700, wrote:
Yes, there is everyday evidence that intelligent being can construct
code. But there is no evidence that random events or chemicals out of
a pond could do so. Since there is plenty of evidence for
intelligence, and no evidence for non-intelligence thus believe in an
intelligent God is much more rational than abiogenesis.
There is a lot of evidence that chemicals out of a pond could
construct code. It is just that they do it rather slowly -- it takes
several billions of years as a matter of fact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
12 Jun 2005 10:18:57 PM |
|
|
Interesting. Now you're actually pulling "several billions of years"
out of a hat. That's silly. You can't extrapolate from known limited
data to how many years it takes to form a code. You can't even start
producing a code.
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
13 Jun 2005 08:11:57 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Interesting. Now you're actually pulling "several billions of years"
out of a hat. That's silly. You can't extrapolate from known limited
data to how many years it takes to form a code. You can't even start
producing a code.
JM
no one's puling several billion years out of a hat .....that's what the
evidence shows ...... just because your too stupid to understand it
doesn't mean it didn't happen ....
--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels
Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "A.Carlson" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
13 Jun 2005 02:59:50 PM |
|
|
On 12 Jun 2005 20:18:57 -0700, wrote:
Interesting. Now you're actually pulling "several billions of years"
out of a hat.
You're one to talk about pulling things 'out of a hat'!
So, exactly what 'evidence' were you referring to that you CLAIM
actually points to intelligence?
That's silly. You can't extrapolate from known limited
data to how many years it takes to form a code.
Although there is evidence internal in the DNA 'code' itself that
gives some indication of relative age, the evidence for the age of the
universe, age of the earth, and how long life in its various forms has
existed here on earth comes from separate lines of evidence.
It really isn't too much of a stretch to extrapolate relatively long
ages from numerous data points related to geological and biological
changes over time based on a variety of dating methods.
You can't even start producing a code.
Which has what to do with what since the discussion is about what it
appears nature has accomplished on its own and NOT what some scientist
in the lab may or may not be able to replicate?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
13 Jun 2005 06:11:43 AM |
|
|
On 12 Jun 2005 20:18:57 -0700, wrote:
Interesting. Now you're actually pulling "several billions of years"
out of a hat. That's silly. You can't extrapolate from known limited
data to how many years it takes to form a code. You can't even start
producing a code.
You're an expert on that, as well now: are you?
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling, Like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
17 Jun 2005 07:12:16 PM |
|
|
You don't need to be an expert to know that you can't make estimates
about how long abiogenesis took to happen when scientists can't create
life at all.
To prove me wrong all you need to do is show us the criteria to which
these estimates were made-up. The truth be told the age of the earth
was estimated before radiometric dating was discovered. If those ages
could be made up your estimates could be made up. And they are
made-up.
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
17 Jun 2005 08:07:53 PM |
|
|
<mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:1119053536.789571.49310@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You don't need to be an expert to know that you can't make estimates
about how long abiogenesis took to happen when scientists can't create
life at all.
How many times does it have to be explained to you that scientists do not
know the *exact* conditions under which Life-as-we-know-it emerged?
To prove me wrong all you need to do is show us the criteria to which
these estimates were made-up.
Age of the earth based upon different lines of evidence, and the first
appearance of certain carbon isotopes and the age of those rocks.
The truth be told the age of the earth
was estimated before radiometric dating was discovered.
"Estimated" based upon rates of sedimentation or heat loss, and ranged
widely from 30-40 million years old to several billion years old. *After*
radiometric dating methods were developed, a more accurate estimate was
derived, and is currently around 4.55 billion years old.
If those ages
could be made up your estimates could be made up.
However, the "estimates" are not "made up", they are backed by evidence.
And they are
made-up.
"Made up" based upon the evidence, to that really isn't "made up", now is
it?
Boikat
--
"Boikat, you are the dung beetle of T.O.
No need to say who is the dung"
Phillip Brown
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
17 Jun 2005 09:37:48 PM |
|
|
<mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:1119053536.789571.49310@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You don't need to be an expert to know that you can't make estimates
about how long abiogenesis took to happen when scientists can't create
life at all.
To prove me wrong all you need to do is show us the criteria to which
these estimates were made-up. The truth be told the age of the earth
was estimated before radiometric dating was discovered. If those ages
could be made up your estimates could be made up. And they are
made-up.
It is true that estimates were made of the age of the Earth before
radiometric dating was invented. Darwin offered estimates of the time
needed to erode out the valley of the Weald in England, and later estimates
were based on the work of Lord Kelvin (who assigned, on thermodynamic
grounds but in ignorance of radioactivity, ages of between 20 and 100
million years for the Earth). It is true that after radiometric dating was
discovered these estimates were replaced by new ones based on actual
measurement.
But how does this support the claim that the ages were "made up?" How, for
that matter, does the claim that the ages were simply "made up" (presumably,
fabricated out of whole cloth to fit "evolutionist" presuppositions) comport
with your frequent claims that estimates of the age of the Earth have gone
up decade by decade *since* the discovery of radiometric dating? If the
dates are simply invented, why not just adhere to the first-invented dates?
If, conversely, you mean that the estimates are based on limited knowledge,
and are to some extent imprecise, this is known -- and you ought not refer
to "approximate" as "made up." Those are different concepts.
JM
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "A.Carlson" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
17 Jun 2005 09:02:10 PM |
|
|
On 17 Jun 2005 17:12:16 -0700, wrote:
You don't need to be an expert to know that you can't make estimates
about how long abiogenesis took to happen when scientists can't create
life at all.
But it can certainly be pointed out that particular conditions existed
for an extensive period of time.
So what do you think then of all the fundy creationists who insist
that there is not enough time for life to have evolved then?
To prove me wrong all you need to do is show us the criteria to which
these estimates were made-up. The truth be told the age of the earth
was estimated before radiometric dating was discovered.
And was based on the best evidence on hand AT THE TIME! It was
certainly a better estimate than the 'goddiditall' crowd was shilling.
At least the scientific community did the best they could under the
circumstances.
If those ages
could be made up your estimates could be made up.
A best guess is a far cry from simply being 'made up'
And they are made-up.
And if we were to apply this same sort of logic to the initial
Copernican view of the universe/solar system we could of course also
come up with views that were radically different than today's but it
would be equally stupid to then jump to the conclusion that either we
are now wrong because we have since modified our views (based on
better evidence at hand) or that this somehow repudiates earlier
findings.
Copernicus simply gave us a better and more accurate view of the
universe. His initial observations were rightfully modified as better
evidence was gathered and/or developed. Regardless, it was still a
far sight better than the 'goddidit' crowd's rote repetition of their
own world view that was actually contradicted by the evidence!
Science does not guarantee answers that are 100% correct, only that
they are far more likely to concur with reality as we can best
understand it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Poley" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
12 Jun 2005 02:01:30 AM |
|
|
On 11 Jun 2005 14:37:08 -0700, wrote:
Much detail but no evidence for abiogenesis. If natural processes lent
themselves toward self-creation of life then that means scientists can
do it in the lab.
Scientists can't create supernovas in the lab. Do you consider that
supernovas are not the result of natural processes?
--
Stephen Poley
Barendrecht, Holland
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
12 Jun 2005 10:21:55 PM |
|
|
This is an old argument given by somebody else on this group. I
already dealt with it. Where did you steal the idea from? Supernovas
aren't constructive processes. They are distructive.
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
12 Jun 2005 10:31:27 PM |
|
|
<mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:1118632915.162331.267830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This is an old argument given by somebody else on this group. I
already dealt with it. Where did you steal the idea from? Supernovas
aren't constructive processes.
They are distructive to the parent star, however supernovas do produce
heavier elements, and the explosion disperses those elements into space
where they can collect under gravitational effects and be incorporated into
protostellar gas and dust clouds. If you know of some mechanism which would
prevent this, please expond.
Boikat
--
<42><
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hudson" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
12 Jun 2005 11:52:26 PM |
|
|
Boikat wrote:
<mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:1118632915.162331.267830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This is an old argument given by somebody else on this group. I
already dealt with it. Where did you steal the idea from? Supernovas
aren't constructive processes.
They are distructive to the parent star, however supernovas do produce
heavier elements, and the explosion disperses those elements into space
where they can collect under gravitational effects and be incorporated into
protostellar gas and dust clouds. If you know of some mechanism which would
prevent this, please expond.
Boikat
--
<42><
I would also say that from the molecular standpoint 'producing heavier
elements' is indeed a 'constructive process'.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
12 Jun 2005 11:07:54 PM |
|
|
<mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:1118632915.162331.267830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This is an old argument given by somebody else on this group. I
already dealt with it. Where did you steal the idea from? Supernovas
aren't constructive processes. They are distructive.
JM
Wrong again. Without the "processes" of supernovas, there wouldn't be
the chemical elements necessary for life on this planet. Sounds
constructive
to me.
Deadrat
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
13 Jun 2005 08:04:03 AM |
|
|
wrote:
This is an old argument given by somebody else on this group. I
already dealt with it. Where did you steal the idea from? Supernovas
aren't constructive processes. They are distructive.
JM
But you didn't deal with it ...... you waved it away ...... you are
wrong on this point as well ...... which was 'Scientists can't create
supernovas in the lab' ....... which they can't ....regardless of
whether they are constructive or distructive ( sic ) ......
--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels
Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: More Evidence of Self-Assembling Structures and Evolution |
13 Jun 2005 09:25:46 AM |
|
|
On 12 Jun 2005 20:21:55 -0700,
mccoy@sunset.net <mccoy@sunset.net> wrote:
This is an old argument given by somebody else on this group. I
already dealt with it. Where did you steal the idea from? Supernovas
aren't constructive processes. They are distructive.
Bwahahahaha! All elements heavier than iron are produced in such
explosions. Without supernovae, the universe would have a lot more mundane
set of elements. Supernovae are very constructive.
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
