Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

[buckshot24]

Here, read the paper.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192504/

From the Method section.

"All strands were designed using the program SEQUIN. 23

Following PAGE purification, strands for the seeds, daughter and granddaughter tiles were mixed stoichiometrically as estimated by OD 260
and dissolved to 0.5 μM in TAE/Mg 2+
buffer (40 mM Tris-HCl, 20 mM Acetic Acid, 2 mM EDTA, 12.5 mM Magnesium Acetate, pH 8.0). The solutions were slowly annealed from 90 °C to room temperature (RT) over 48 hours in a 2-litre water bath insulated in a Styrofoam box. Stoichiometric quantities of seven seed tiles were mixed and annealed from 45 °C to RT over 24 hours to make seeds. To form the first generation, three first-generation tiles (I′, A′, and B&#8242😉 were mixed with annealed first-generation tiles (seeds:I′:A′:B′=1:2:4:8), and slowly annealed from 45 °C to RT. Dynabeads were washed with ddH​

2

O and TAE/Mg buffer, mixed with beads linker in TAE/Mg buffer, slowly annealed from 55 °C to RT, washed with buffer, and mixed with DNA solution. The solution containing dynabeads was annealed from 33 °C to 23 °, placed on a magnetic stand and washed with TAE/Mg buffer. Linking strands 2, 6 and 9 were then added, the solution cooled from 33 °C to 23 °C, placed on a magnetic stand and washed with TAE/Mg buffer to remove excess linkers. Dynabeads in TAE/Mg buffer were kept at 37 °C for one hour, placed on the magnetic stand, and the solution was removed from dynabeads and stored in a clean tube for AFM imaging. Formation of the second generation is similar to the first: It starts from initial seed preparation, followed by formation of the first generation, and adding second-generation tiles (I″, A″, and B&#8243😉. Steps (2)-(8) described in formation of the first-generation were repeated."

This solution would never occur outside of a lab let alone persist for millions of years.

They pre-built portions of the RNA molecule and placed them in the solution. So it didn't have to build itself bit by bit it did it chunk by chunk. I forgot about that bit, I was going under the impression that they had all the nucleotides in solution with nothing else. It's much much more designed than I thought. Then you have all the rinsing and removing of "linkers". LOL
​

 

[Paul98]

Here, read the paper.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192504/

That has nothing to do with the beginning of life, no one knows how it started. But we can see the chemistry that creates the basics of life. Thus to say it's impossible is simply moronic.

There is all this evidence of chemistry and how things that build life come from it. There is all sorts of evidence that life started out very simple. We don't know exactly how life started, but we know that the conditions on the earth could created the building blocks of life. Yet you say it's impossible for life to be created while not even knowing how life is created. You just sound stupid.

 

[buckshot24]

That has nothing to do with the beginning of life, no one knows how it started. But we can see the chemistry that creates the basics of life. Thus to say it's impossible is simply moronic.

I said the solution that the researchers created was impossible outside of a lab. I agree that this research has nothing to do with the beginning of life.

There is all this evidence of chemistry and how things that build life come from it. There is all sorts of evidence that life started out very simple.

Well, where is it?

We don't know exactly how life started, but we know that the conditions on the earth could created the building blocks of life.

This guy sounds like he has some evidence! Produce some of it for me please.
Yet you say it's impossible for life to be created while not even knowing how life is created. You just sound stupid.[/QUOTE]Again, I was talking about the solution the self replicating molecules were created in.

Read the paper and tell me how what I claim is wrong. How could this exist outside of a lab?

 

[Paul98]

I said the solution that the researchers created was impossible outside of a lab. I agree that this research has nothing to do with the beginning of life.

Well, where is it?
This guy sounds like he has some evidence! Produce some of it for me please.
Yet you say it's impossible for life to be created while not even knowing how life is created. You just sound stupid.Again, I was talking about the solution the self replicating molecules were created in.

Read the paper and tell me how what I claim is wrong. How could this exist outside of a lab?

Are we not talking about the origin of life??? so what does this paper have to do with it... nothing so why bring it up?

Edit: all you are trying to say is that the specific conditions used in that paper couldn't be how life started.

 

[buckshot24]

Are we not talking about the origin of life??? so what does this paper have to do with it... nothing so why bring it up?

Yes but that isn't what I was calling impossible. I've been talking about the paper for many posts because somebody indirectly brought it up in response to something else I said.

Edit: all you are trying to say is that the specific conditions used in that paper couldn't be how life started.

Yes

 

[Juddog]

Here, read the paper.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192504/

From the Method section.

"All strands were designed using the program SEQUIN. 23

Following PAGE purification, strands for the seeds, daughter and granddaughter tiles were mixed stoichiometrically as estimated by OD 260
and dissolved to 0.5 μM in TAE/Mg 2+
buffer (40 mM Tris-HCl, 20 mM Acetic Acid, 2 mM EDTA, 12.5 mM Magnesium Acetate, pH 8.0). The solutions were slowly annealed from 90 °C to room temperature (RT) over 48 hours in a 2-litre water bath insulated in a Styrofoam box. Stoichiometric quantities of seven seed tiles were mixed and annealed from 45 °C to RT over 24 hours to make seeds. To form the first generation, three first-generation tiles (I′, A′, and B&#8242😉 were mixed with annealed first-generation tiles (seeds:I′:A′:B′=1:2:4:8), and slowly annealed from 45 °C to RT. Dynabeads were washed with ddH​

2

O and TAE/Mg buffer, mixed with beads linker in TAE/Mg buffer, slowly annealed from 55 °C to RT, washed with buffer, and mixed with DNA solution. The solution containing dynabeads was annealed from 33 °C to 23 °, placed on a magnetic stand and washed with TAE/Mg buffer. Linking strands 2, 6 and 9 were then added, the solution cooled from 33 °C to 23 °C, placed on a magnetic stand and washed with TAE/Mg buffer to remove excess linkers. Dynabeads in TAE/Mg buffer were kept at 37 °C for one hour, placed on the magnetic stand, and the solution was removed from dynabeads and stored in a clean tube for AFM imaging. Formation of the second generation is similar to the first: It starts from initial seed preparation, followed by formation of the first generation, and adding second-generation tiles (I″, A″, and B&#8243😉. Steps (2)-(8) described in formation of the first-generation were repeated."

This solution would never occur outside of a lab let alone persist for millions of years.

They pre-built portions of the RNA molecule and placed them in the solution. So it didn't have to build itself bit by bit it did it chunk by chunk. I forgot about that bit, I was going under the impression that they had all the nucleotides in solution with nothing else. It's much much more designed than I thought. Then you have all the rinsing and removing of "linkers". LOL
​

If they can make it in a lab, then it's possible for it to happen in nature. You don't need a magic sky fairy to do that, just lots of time and the right ingredients.

You seem to forget that life started 3.5 billion years ago. BILLION YEARS. I don't think you comprehend just how long of a period of time that is. If the Earth can spontaneously create nuclear fission, then it's not really that crazy of a thought to think that the right combinations to form life spring up over time.

Your entire argument boils down to "it's complicated, so God did it". That's the God of the Gaps theory, and it has been destroyed time and time again. To continue to cling to this is completely ridiculous.

 

[Juddog]

Yes but that isn't what I was calling impossible.

You keep saying "impossible" but it seems you really don't understand what impossible means, nor the difference between improbable and impossible.

Impossible means something cannot happen. If we can reproduce that thing in the lab, then that means it's not impossible. You can say it's improbable for something like that to happen in nature, but to continue to insist that it's impossible when we've already re-created it artificially is basically the equivalent of crippling your brain so that what you understand logically doesn't conflict with what you feel emotionally.

 

[buckshot24]

If they can make it in a lab, then it's possible for it to happen in nature. You don't need a magic sky fairy to do that, just lots of time and the right ingredients.

Do you think a for minivan can form without aid of intelligent agents? The process where this meager replication occurs is no less designed than the van.

You seem to forget that life started 3.5 billion years ago. BILLION YEARS.

Based upon what evidence?

I don't think you comprehend just how long of a period of time that is. If the Earth can spontaneously create nuclear fission, then it's not really that crazy of a thought to think that the right combinations to form life spring up over time.

I'm talking about the solution and entire process used in this experiment. It is impossible to form outside of the lab, period. This would never happen given a trillion years.

Your entire argument boils down to "it's complicated, so God did it".

I'm talking about this experiment. I'm not even talking about God. The process they used to get these molecules employed extreme tinkering by intelligent agents.

 

[buckshot24]

You keep saying "impossible" but it seems you really don't understand what impossible means, nor the difference between improbable and impossible.

That's because it isn't possible for the process they used to occur outside of the lab. Just as it isn't possible a fresh big mac would spontaneously generate outside of McDonald's. Your computer would never "create itself" through unguided processes. These things are simply impossible. What they had to do with the solution is exactly the same way. It cannot happen outside of the lab.

Impossible means something cannot happen.

It cannot happen outside of the lab.

If we can reproduce that thing in the lab, then that means it's not impossible.

Of course it isn't impossible for it to happen IF you do it in the lab. It only becomes impossible if it is left to the laws of nature without it being designed.

You can say it's improbable for something like that to happen in nature, but to continue to insist that it's impossible when we've already re-created it artificially is basically the equivalent of crippling your brain so that what you understand logically doesn't conflict with what you feel emotionally.

First, you've straw maned the argument. I never said it was impossible for it to exist in any situation. It is impossible to exist outside of a lab (or under some other heavy influence by intelligent agents). Intelligent agents explain exactly how they did it. It isn't impossible for an ipod to exist. It is impossible for an ipod to exist that wasn't created by intelligent agents.

Now, to be clear I'm only talking about "impossible" in relation to the process and solution used to get these self replicating molecules.

 

[buckshot24]

If they can make it in a lab, then it's possible for it to happen in nature. You don't need a magic sky fairy to do that, just lots of time and the right ingredients.

"Billions of years didit"! Can't you see the hypocrisy? We don't know how they did it therefore "vast amounts of time did it".

 

[Juddog]

I'm talking about the solution and entire process used in this experiment. It is impossible to form outside of the lab, period. This would never happen given a trillion years.

OK now you're just being flat out ridiculous. You literally think something could never occur, even after the entire age of the universe was repeated through 50 times in a row. Now you state that a process that has already happened in nature cannot occur in a trillion years.

It's becoming harder and harder to take you you seriously when you show such a clear misunderstanding of how science works.

 

[buckshot24]

[/b]

OK now you're just being flat out ridiculous. You literally think something could never occur, even after the entire age of the universe was repeated through 50 times in a row. Now you state that a process that has already happened in nature cannot occur in a trillion years.

It's becoming harder and harder to take you you seriously when you show such a clear misunderstanding of how science works.

I'm talking about the experiment, not abiogenesis in general. That's the fourth time I've had to say that now. Hopefully it finally sinks in.

edit: But you quote me saying this very same thing! What is wrong with you? I think your turban is wrapped too tight.

 

[Juddog]

I'm talking about the experiment, not abiogenesis in general. That's the fourth time I've had to say that now. Hopefully it finally sinks in.

edit: But you quote me saying this very same thing! What is wrong with you? I think your turban is wrapped too tight.

Prove to me it's impossible.

 

[buckshot24]

Prove to me it's impossible.

Prove what is impossible. You've misrepresented my point so often that I want to be sure.

 

[Juddog]

Prove what is impossible. You've misrepresented my point so often that I want to be sure.

You have asserted that it's impossible, so I want you to prove what you say. Either you can prove it, or you can't - it's real simple.

You made the assertion that it's impossible here:

I'm not saying this solution is unlikely to occur on earth outside of a lab, I'm saying it is impossible.

im·pos·si·ble
imˈpäsəbəl/
adjective
adjective: impossible

1.
not able to occur, exist, or be done.

 

[buckshot24]

You have asserted that it's impossible, so I want you to prove what you say. Either you can prove it, or you can't - it's real simple.

WHAT? What are you asking about? I'm still not sure you get what I'm saying is impossible.

 

[Juddog]

WHAT? What are you asking about? I'm still not sure you get what I'm saying is impossible.

I see now that you realize you said something incredibly stupid earlier in the thread and are trying to back out of it. Either you prove that it's impossible, or concede that you're full of shit and talking out of your ass at this point.

-- edit --

Nevermind; obviously you can't prove it's impossible, since it's already proven to be possible. At this point you've made it to my ignore list and are no longer worth responding to.

 

[buckshot24]

I see now that you realize you said something incredibly stupid earlier in the thread and are trying to back out of it. Either you prove that it's impossible, or concede that you're full of shit and talking out of your ass at this point.

Not at all. I still don't think you know what I said was impossible. You've equivocated my claim with abiogenesis itself more than once. I sincerely don't think you know what I think is impossible. I'll try to convince you if you let me know what I'm trying to convince you of.

 

[buckshot24]

Nevermind; obviously you can't prove it's impossible, since it's already proven to be possible. At this point you've made it to my ignore list and are no longer worth responding to.

I knew he didn't get it.

Writing a 400 page book is proof that such a book could exist but it isn't proof that it could come about without the aid of the author. It is impossible for the book to come about without the author writing the book.

Well Juddog, see ya later.

 

[sandorski]

I knew he didn't get it.

Writing a 400 page book is proof that such a book could exist but it isn't proof that it could come about without the aid of the author. It is impossible for the book to come about without the author writing the book.

Well Juddog, see ya later.

Victory?

 

[buckshot24]

Victory?

No, but thanks for quoting me so he can see my reply. :sneaky:

I was ready to try and convince him.

 

[sandorski]

No, but thanks for quoting me so he can see my reply. :sneaky:

I was ready to try and convince him.

I seriously doubt that.

 

[JD50]

What are you talking about? What do I believe without having evidence?

Buckshot??

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You'd be in the fringe kook minority if you think replicating life has always existed.

Did I say I believed that? Also, what is "replicating life," and in what ways is it distinct from "non-replicating life"?

I'd like to see some arguments for such a premise.

Upon what basis can you insist I defend a claim I've never made?

Except in the real world life didn't always exist...

And your evidence for that claim is... ?

.... in fact I've never even heard it postulated that life itself was eternal.

Can you define "life"? If not, then how would you even know if it always existed or not?

Sure, by postulating something so fringe that I've never even heard it before.

I'm quite confident the things you've "never even heard" could overflow the Grand Canyon.

You're on the fringe of cosmology if you think the universe always existed.

Let me ask you this: when do you think the universe did not exist? If we were to suppose that the universe did not always exist, then there must exist some time interval when the universe was not existing.

When was that?

You're on the wacko fringe of biology if you think life has existed eternally.

1.) I never said I think that. I merely pointed out that it isn't known to be false.
2.) You can't tell us what "life" is, but yet you seem awfully certain about when it did and didn't exist. You don't see the problem with that?

 

[buckshot24]

I seriously doubt that.

So you're saying I was lying? I really was going to try.