| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"MsAnthrope" |
| Date: |
03 Feb 2005 08:41:57 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Is Anyone Here an ADVENTIST?! |
In article <1107423912.431243.254020@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Orion7
says...
Don't you know evolution is a farce? You are obviously a product of the
brain washing which goes on in our Schools, Colleges and Universities.
I have seen the desperate lengths these Professors and Scientists go to
make people believe in evolution, even fabricating evidence to support
their unsupportable theories.
1st Rule of Creationism: Ignored evidence will go away
2nd Rule of Creationism: Interpret any challenge as personal insult
3rd Rule of Creationism: Claim evidence then quietly slip away
4th Rule of Creationism: Don't be confused by facts
5th Rule of Creationism: Insist that science ignores your proof
6th Rule of Creationism: Claim superiority for Christian education.
7th Rule of Creationism: Always appear to know more than you do.
8th Rule of Creationism: Shift the burden of proof to your critics.
9th Rule of Creationism: Lying for the Lord is okay.
10th Rule of Creationism: Never acknowledge your demonstrated errors
--
MsAnthrope
http://web.newsguy.com/rubyred
.
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
26 Feb 2005 09:18:10 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:38abraF5ga3h1U1@individual.net:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1109195742.018967.175920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
..we're pretty sure that life can originate from any supply
of the right kinds of "dead chemicals".
Apparently it is no problem to you that it has never been
observed to have occurred.
I have seen sufficient evidence.
"That life can originate from dead chemicals." Then
why hasn't this ~~evidence~~ made the headlines?
It has.
Yes in 1953, but it turned out not to be.
Andrew
miller's theory has never been falsified.
It is falsified by the fact that the conditions required to synthesize
an amino acid are also conditions which are incompatible to life.
Except when they're not.
Also, the 20 biologically active amino acids must ALL be left handed,
but amino acids made in the lab are 50% left ~~and~~ 50% right handed.
Except when they're not.
Any right handed amino acid would not work.
Except when they do.
It's like having those theoretical monkeys randomly typing away
expecting them to eventually type (not only a book but a library) with
50% of the keys on their type- writers..keys which would invalidate
any supposed progress they may have made.
Yawn.
Not only that, but you would also have to instruct your monkeys (who
of course would not understand what you are talking about) that not
only did all the protein molecules have to be left handed, but that
all of the nucleic acids of the RNA and DNA had to be ~right~ handed.
Ho hum.
Now take this to your statisticians and ask them to give you the
probabilities of monkeys typing out such a thing, which would be
tantamount to typing a library of books containing specific technical
information using typewriters that had half of the keys invalidating
any progress they would have made.
Snoooore.
When you are finished with the above assignment, let me know their
conclusion.
You're wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I do know some folks who would argue with you over that.
The time-space continuum means nothing to them."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
26 Feb 2005 09:34:14 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" wrote:
You're wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Thank you, Fred. Comments of this nature actually validate my premise
which is antithetical to those whose platform is based on a religious type
of fanatical belief that is unsupportable under honest critical examination.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
26 Feb 2005 10:13:40 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:38bj7jF5ikn8dU1@individual.net:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
You're wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Thank you, Fred. Comments of this nature actually validate my premise
which is antithetical to those whose platform is based on a religious
type of fanatical belief that is unsupportable under honest critical
examination.
You're welcome, Andrew. You haven't supplied any honest critical
examination. You haven't managed to acknowledge one bit of my (or anyone
else's) real, informative comments so why should we continue to bother?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I do know some folks who would argue with you over that.
The time-space continuum means nothing to them."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
26 Feb 2005 12:31:57 PM |
|
|
In article <38bj7jF5ikn8dU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
You're wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Thank you, Fred. Comments of this nature actually validate my premise
which is antithetical to those whose platform is based on a religious type
of fanatical belief that is unsupportable under honest critical examination.
Andrew
Andrew's absolute certainty in the absence of conclusive evidence
strikes me as being one of those religious types of fanatical belief.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
25 Feb 2005 11:18:02 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1109195742.018967.175920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
..we're pretty sure that life can originate from any
supply of the
right kinds of "dead chemicals".
Apparently it is no problem to you that it has never been
observed to
have occurred.
I have seen sufficient evidence.
"That life can originate from dead chemicals." Then
why hasn't this ~~evidence~~ made the headlines?
It has.
Yes in 1953, but it turned out not to be.
Andrew
miller's theory has never been falsified.
It is falsified by the fact that the conditions required to
synthesize an amino acid
are also conditions which are incompatible to life. Also, the 20
biologically active
amino acids must ALL be left handed, but amino acids made in the lab
are 50%
left ~~and~~ 50% right handed. Any right handed amino acid would not
work.
only modern life. not "life" in general. also, if you want left handed
amino acids, look no further than meteors or comets, which produce a
larger number of lefties than righties.
more on the "handedness problem:"
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB040.html
It's like having those theoretical monkeys randomly typing away
expecting them to
eventually type (not only a book but a library) with 50% of the keys
on their type-
writers..keys which would invalidate any supposed progress they may
have made.
hardly. there are 20 amino acids from which to choose from, and 26 keys
on the keyboard. why would you think 13 a better fit?
Not only that, but you would also have to instruct your monkeys (who
of course
would not understand what you are talking about) that not only did
all the protein
molecules have to be left handed, but that all of the nucleic acids
of the RNA and
DNA had to be ~right~ handed.
chemistry does not need instruction by monkeys.
Now take this to your statisticians and ask them to give you the
probabilities of
monkeys typing out such a thing, which would be tantamount to typing
a library
of books containing specific technical information using typewriters
that had half
of the keys invalidating any progress they would have made.
When you are finished with the above assignment, let me know their
conclusion.
Thank you.
Andrew
when you have come up with a valid probability model, let me know so i
dont have to waste the valuable time of statisticians.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
26 Feb 2005 09:05:59 AM |
|
|
"snex" wrote in message news:1109395082.566659.162080@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
It's like having those theoretical monkeys randomly typing away expecting them to
eventually type (not only a book but a library) with 50% of the keys on their type-
writers..keys which would invalidate any supposed progress they may have made.
hardly. there are 20 amino acids from which to choose from, and 26 keys
on the keyboard. why would you think 13 a better fit?
Giving allowance for as many keys as you think necessary for your primordial
typewriter, to be honest you must also have keys for right handed amino acids
and the left handed acids and sugars; but the random use any of those keys by
the monkey would invalidate any progress which could theoretically have been
made by him or them. Therefore, it is really a statistical impossibility. It never
could have happened by random chance.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
26 Feb 2005 01:45:56 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1109395082.566659.162080@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
It's like having those theoretical monkeys randomly typing away
expecting them to
eventually type (not only a book but a library) with 50% of the
keys on their type-
writers..keys which would invalidate any supposed progress they
may have made.
hardly. there are 20 amino acids from which to choose from, and 26
keys
on the keyboard. why would you think 13 a better fit?
Giving allowance for as many keys as you think necessary for your
primordial
typewriter, to be honest you must also have keys for right handed
amino acids
and the left handed acids and sugars; but the random use any of those
keys by
the monkey would invalidate any progress which could theoretically
have been
made by him or them. Therefore, it is really a statistical
impossibility. It never
could have happened by random chance.
Andrew
why do you assume that those "keys" were available for use in the
finished product? did you simply ignore the link i gave you? you must
have, because it explains several reasons why certain amino acids are
favored.
in fact, andrew, the fact that only 20 specific amino acids are used in
life is evidence FOR evolution, because even though ANY of the
thousands could have been used, they were not. i have already given
explanations why those 20 might have been favored, but you have given
no explanation at all as to why some hypothetical designer would favor
those 20.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
26 Feb 2005 12:29:19 PM |
|
|
In article <38bhilF5n8ju4U1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1109395082.566659.162080@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
It's like having those theoretical monkeys randomly typing away expecting
them to
eventually type (not only a book but a library) with 50% of the keys on
their type-
writers..keys which would invalidate any supposed progress they may have
made.
hardly. there are 20 amino acids from which to choose from, and 26 keys
on the keyboard. why would you think 13 a better fit?
Giving allowance for as many keys as you think necessary for your primordial
typewriter, to be honest you must also have keys for right handed amino acids
and the left handed acids and sugars; but the random use any of those keys by
the monkey would invalidate any progress which could theoretically have been
made by him or them. Therefore, it is really a statistical impossibility.
It never
could have happened by random chance.
It is only statistically improbable, and only over the short run and
only over a single short run.
Since creatin of the ur-molecule of life only had to happen once in all
the world and in all the millions and millions of years involved, what
may be locally highly improbable can be globally almost inevitable.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
27 Feb 2005 07:16:30 AM |
|
|
"snex" wrote in message news:1109395082.566659.162080@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
if you want left handed amino acids, look no further than meteors or comets..
That's it..they came from outer space. They were riding on ~comets~ which
smashed into the earth!! You have an extraordinary belief system to accept
stories like this. I have tried to warn you that it is all part of an elaborate and
grand hoax.
<sigh>
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
01 Mar 2005 11:57:13 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1109395082.566659.162080@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
if you want left handed amino acids, look no further than meteors
or comets..
That's it..they came from outer space. They were riding on ~comets~
which
smashed into the earth!! You have an extraordinary belief system to
accept
stories like this. I have tried to warn you that it is all part of an
elaborate and
grand hoax.
<sigh>
Andrew
andrew it is an observed fact that meteorites carry amino acids with
them, and that they are mostly left handed. your hand-waving cannot
change observed facts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
01 Mar 2005 05:53:08 PM |
|
|
"snex" wrote in message news:1109699833.296141.277420@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"snex" wrote:
if you want left handed amino acids, look no further than meteors or comets..
That's it..they came from outer space. They were riding on ~comets~ which
smashed into the earth!! You have an extraordinary belief system to accept
stories like this. I have tried to warn you that it is all part of an elaborate and
grand hoax.
<sigh>
Andrew
andrew it is an observed fact that meteorites carry amino acids with
them, and that they are mostly left handed.
That could very well be, since they come streaking through our atmosphere which
is filled with L-amino acids that are in the pollen. A better example would be rocks
brought back from the moon that are uncontaminated by a pollen filled atmosphere.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
01 Mar 2005 06:01:44 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1109699833.296141.277420@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"snex" wrote:
if you want left handed amino acids, look no further than
meteors or comets..
That's it..they came from outer space. They were riding on
~comets~ which
smashed into the earth!! You have an extraordinary belief
system to accept
stories like this. I have tried to warn you that it is all part
of an elaborate and
grand hoax.
<sigh>
Andrew
andrew it is an observed fact that meteorites carry amino acids
with
them, and that they are mostly left handed.
That could very well be, since they come streaking through our
atmosphere which
is filled with L-amino acids that are in the pollen. A better example
would be rocks
brought back from the moon that are uncontaminated by a pollen filled
atmosphere.
Andrew
you MUST be joking andrew.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
01 Mar 2005 11:02:31 PM |
|
|
In article <38kdj5F5nv0mvU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1109699833.296141.277420@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"snex" wrote:
if you want left handed amino acids, look no further than meteors or
comets..
That's it..they came from outer space. They were riding on ~comets~ which
smashed into the earth!! You have an extraordinary belief system to
accept
stories like this. I have tried to warn you that it is all part of an
elaborate and
grand hoax.
<sigh>
Andrew
andrew it is an observed fact that meteorites carry amino acids with
them, and that they are mostly left handed.
That could very well be, since they come streaking through our atmosphere
which
is filled with L-amino acids that are in the pollen. A better example would
be rocks
brought back from the moon that are uncontaminated by a pollen filled
atmosphere.
It does not take much of a Google search to show that Andrew's unspoken
hypothesis is wrong, and that at least some of those amino acid
molecules in meteorites are extraterrestial in origin.
"We know that at least some of these amino acids in meteorites are
genuine extraterrestrial molecules, and not contamination."
http://www.astrochem.org/amino.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
03 Mar 2005 12:00:59 PM |
|
|
In article <38kdj5F5nv0mvU1@individual.net>, Andrew said...
That could very well be, since they come streaking through our atmosphere which
is filled with L-amino acids that are in the pollen.
By what means does this "pollen" gets deep inside the rock,
Andrew?
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
03 Mar 2005 01:34:47 PM |
|
|
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message news:MPG.1c911aebdc72d815989805@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <38kdj5F5nv0mvU1@individual.net>, Andrew said...
That could very well be, since they come streaking through our atmosphere which
is filled with L-amino acids that are in the pollen.
By what means does this "pollen" gets deep inside the rock,
Andrew?
Cracks and/or fissures.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
03 Mar 2005 06:09:12 PM |
|
|
In article <38p76pF5p885aU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c911aebdc72d815989805@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <38kdj5F5nv0mvU1@individual.net>, Andrew said...
That could very well be, since they come streaking through our atmosphere
which
is filled with L-amino acids that are in the pollen.
By what means does this "pollen" gets deep inside the rock,
Andrew?
Cracks and/or fissures.
And how does this rock then seal itself up so that no evidence of there
ever having been these cracks and/or fissures can be found by even the
most meticulous examinations?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
03 Mar 2005 06:33:47 PM |
|
|
In article <38p76pF5p885aU1@individual.net>, Andrew said...
By what means does this "pollen" gets deep inside the rock,
Andrew?
Cracks and/or fissures.
Some meteorites have no cracks or fissures which penetrate into
the interior. Nonetheless we find the chemicals in question
inside such rocks when we cut them open. Pollen cannot account
for this.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
03 Mar 2005 10:24:31 PM |
|
|
"Brian E. Clark" wrote in message news:MPG.1c9176fa47f7337398980f@news.comcast.giganews.com...
Some meteorites have no cracks or fissures which penetrate into
the interior. Nonetheless we find the chemicals in question
inside such rocks when we cut them open.
You find chemicals in the rocks. . . and what is deduced from this?
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
03 Mar 2005 10:42:46 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9176fa47f7337398980f@news.comcast.giganews.com...
Some meteorites have no cracks or fissures which penetrate into
the interior. Nonetheless we find the chemicals in question
inside such rocks when we cut them open.
You find chemicals in the rocks. . . and what is deduced from this?
you dont find it just a tad coincidental that the building blocks of
life are regularly produced in nature?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
03 Mar 2005 10:39:46 PM |
|
|
In article <38q67vF5jtp73U1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9176fa47f7337398980f@news.comcast.giganews.com...
Some meteorites have no cracks or fissures which penetrate into
the interior. Nonetheless we find the chemicals in question
inside such rocks when we cut them open.
You find chemicals in the rocks. . . and what is deduced from this?
That those chemicals were in the rocks prior entering earth's atmosphere.
This suggests that the original source of those chemicals might have
been extraterrestial.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
03 Mar 2005 07:05:56 PM |
|
|
Brian E. Clark wrote:
In article <38p76pF5p885aU1@individual.net>, Andrew said...
By what means does this "pollen" gets deep inside the rock,
Andrew?
Cracks and/or fissures.
Some meteorites have no cracks or fissures which penetrate into
the interior. Nonetheless we find the chemicals in question
inside such rocks when we cut them open. Pollen cannot account
for this.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
pollen also cannot account for the minority of right chrial aminos also
found in the meteorites. apparently he was so eager to dismiss my
evidence that he neglected to actually read what i said.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
27 Feb 2005 10:50:16 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"snex" wrote in message news:1109395082.566659.162080@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
if you want left handed amino acids, look no further than meteors or comets..
That's it..they came from outer space. They were riding on ~comets~ which
smashed into the earth!! You have an extraordinary belief system to accept
stories like this. I have tried to warn you that it is all part of an elaborate and
grand hoax.
Do you have any evidence that they didn't? Or is it just that the
possibility scares you
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
27 Feb 2005 12:50:18 PM |
|
|
In article <38dvh9F5m1rkpU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1109395082.566659.162080@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
if you want left handed amino acids, look no further than meteors or
comets..
That's it..they came from outer space. They were riding on ~comets~ which
smashed into the earth!! You have an extraordinary belief system to accept
stories like this. I have tried to warn you that it is all part of an
elaborate and
grand hoax.
<sigh>
And how does Andrew know with such certainty that comets do not contain
any amino acids, or that they could not have come to earth that way?
Does Andrew have any evidenc that the following is false, to that the
other 12000 or so Google hits on the subject of amino acids on comets
are all false?
From http://i-mass.com/cmet0501.html, q.v.
Molecular Hitchhiking on a Comet
A team of scientists have used mass spectrometry to show that organic
molecules hitchhiking aboard a comet could survive an impact with Earth
and thus have seeded life on this planet. The results give credence to
the theory that the raw materials for life came from outer space and
were assembled on Earth into the ancestors of today's proteins and DNA.
Interestingly, more than 70 amino acids have been found in meteorites,
and eight of them are in common with those found in humans and all
other life on Earth.
Jennifer Blank of the Department of Earth and Planetary Science at the
University of California, Berkeley and her colleagues Randy Winans and
Mike Ahrens of Argonne National Laboratory, and engineer-mathematician
Gregory Miller of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, reported
their preliminary findings at the national meeting of the American
Chemical Society in San Diego, California.
The article goes on to give details.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
26 Feb 2005 06:36:17 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:22:04 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"snex" wrote in message news:1109195742.018967.175920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
..we're pretty sure that life can originate from any supply of the
right kinds of "dead chemicals".
Apparently it is no problem to you that it has never been observed to
have occurred.
I have seen sufficient evidence.
"That life can originate from dead chemicals." Then
why hasn't this ~~evidence~~ made the headlines?
It has.
Yes in 1953, but it turned out not to be.
Andrew
miller's theory has never been falsified.
It is falsified by the fact that the conditions required to synthesize an amino acid
are also conditions which are incompatible to life.
No, they are not.
Also, the 20 biologically active
amino acids must ALL be left handed, but amino acids made in the lab are 50%
left ~~and~~ 50% right handed. Any right handed amino acid would not work.
And?
When are you going to stop beleiving in the hoax that is
"creationism"?
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
04 Mar 2005 04:12:00 PM |
|
|
In article <pe52219jo82khhfnndip2oqmch3ih209md@4ax.com>, Don
Kresch said...
Also, the 20 biologically activeamino acids must ALL be left handed,
but amino acids made in the lab are 50% left ~~and~~ 50% right
handed. Any right handed amino acid would not work.
And?
Another amazing coincidence: in their natural state, stones come
in all shapes and sizes, but my neighbor's dry-stone wall is
made entirely from flat stones of nearly uniform size. It's as
if some process has selected the useful variants from the range
of magnitudes and proportions.
(Five'll get you ten that our visiting Creationist will fail to
see the point of the analogy and retort, instead, that the
sorting required an intelligent agent. But I could just as
easily have talked about rivers and boulders and silt.)
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
25 Feb 2005 10:48:11 PM |
|
|
In article <38abraF5ga3h1U1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1109195742.018967.175920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
..we're pretty sure that life can originate from any supply of the
right kinds of "dead chemicals".
Apparently it is no problem to you that it has never been observed
to
have occurred.
I have seen sufficient evidence.
"That life can originate from dead chemicals." Then
why hasn't this ~~evidence~~ made the headlines?
It has.
Yes in 1953, but it turned out not to be.
Andrew
miller's theory has never been falsified.
It is falsified by the fact that the conditions required to synthesize an
amino acid
are also conditions which are incompatible to life. Also, the 20 biologically
active
amino acids must ALL be left handed, but amino acids made in the lab are 50%
left ~~and~~ 50% right handed. Any right handed amino acid would not work.
It's like having those theoretical monkeys randomly typing away expecting
them to
eventually type (not only a book but a library) with 50% of the keys on their
type-
writers..keys which would invalidate any supposed progress they may have
made.
Not only that, but you would also have to instruct your monkeys (who of
course
would not understand what you are talking about) that not only did all the
protein
molecules have to be left handed, but that all of the nucleic acids of the
RNA and
DNA had to be ~right~ handed.
Now take this to your statisticians and ask them to give you the
probabilities of
monkeys typing out such a thing, which would be tantamount to typing a
library
of books containing specific technical information using typewriters that had
half
of the keys invalidating any progress they would have made.
When you are finished with the above assignment, let me know their
conclusion.
What particular event may be extremely unlikely to occur at one
particular place at one particular time does not make a collection of
similar events at any place in the world over millions, if not billions,
of years still improbable.
Tossing a fair coin repeatedly will not give in the short run, say, a
thousand heads consecutively with any great probability, but if the
tossing is kept up long enough and there are billions upon billions of
coins being tossed, even ten thousand consecutive heads becomes a
virtual certainty.
Given enough monkeys on enough typewriters over a long enough time, the
chances are that they will type anything one wants to have typed.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 05:07:54 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:45:48 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:500p111aa5pu2k76a62f3j60bp324r5m5c@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
..we're pretty sure that life can originate from any supply of the
right kinds of "dead chemicals".
Apparently it is no problem to you that it has never been observed to
have occurred.
I have seen sufficient evidence.
"That life can originate from dead chemicals." Then
why hasn't this ~~evidence~~ made the headlines?
It has.
Yes in 1953, but it turned out not to be.
No, it turned out to be. How nice of you to lie.
But then, that's all you're capable of. You're an inveterate
liar.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 01:43:05 PM |
|
|
In article <3830j1F5kb1gtU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote in message news:Xns9605721E81D23fstone69@205.188.138.161...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
..we're pretty sure that life can originate from any supply of the
right kinds of "dead chemicals".
Apparently it is no problem to you that it has never been observed to
have occurred.
There are lots of thing that we have never seen that we are sure
happened.
The creation of our solar system is one such thing that no one has seen
that we can be reasonably sure occured.
Or do we have to recreate it in front of Andrew before he will accede to
this possibility?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 04:02:16 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" wrote in message news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-8B7D9B.12430523022005@[63.218.45.211]...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
..we're pretty sure that life can originate from any supply of the
right kinds of "dead chemicals".
Apparently it is no problem to you that it has never been observed to
have occurred.
There are lots of thing that we have never seen that we are sure
happened.
The creation of our solar system is one such thing that no one has seen
that we can be reasonably sure occured.
Finally we are starting to agree - yes, our solar system was indeed *created*.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 04:05:17 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Virgil" wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-8B7D9B.12430523022005@[63.218.45.211]...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote:
..we're pretty sure that life can originate from any supply
of the
right kinds of "dead chemicals".
Apparently it is no problem to you that it has never been
observed to
have occurred.
There are lots of thing that we have never seen that we are sure
happened.
The creation of our solar system is one such thing that no one has
seen
that we can be reasonably sure occured.
Finally we are starting to agree - yes, our solar system was indeed
*created*.
Andrew
yes, created by a supernova 4.55 billion years ago.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
