School district in MI votes tomorrow night whether or not to allow ID

[dannybin1742]

good to see LMK stopped posting rhetoric, i was getting tired of him asking simple questions that have been answered once or twice already in this thread

FYI:

cytoplasm is mostly water, but the structural part of it is actin there is F actin and G actin, the intracellular highways in the cell are simply incredible, its not yet fully understood how the traffic is all controlled

rna is the similar to dna except is can fold into structures and encodes an AA sequence (translation) (i can include more on this, but i only want to type this bit)

whats amazing is that genetic codes goes from DNA- premrna- mrna- peptide, yet the ribosome which is 95% rna takes the RNA and translates it to and amino acid sequence with the help of you guessed it Trna (they are selective to each amino acid)

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
good to see LMK stopped posting rhetoric, i was getting tired of him asking simple questions that have been answered once or twice already in this thread

FYI:

cytoplasm is mostly water, but the structural part of it is actin there is F actin and G actin, the intracellular highways in the cell are simply incredible, its not yet fully understood how the traffic is all controlled

rna is the similar to dna except is can fold into structures and encodes an AA sequence (translation) (i can include more on this, but i only want to type this bit)

whats amazing is that genetic codes goes from DNA- premrna- mrna- peptide, yet the ribosome which is 95% rna takes the RNA and translates it to and amino acid sequence with the help of you guessed it Trna (they are selective to each amino acid)

What about that tough actin' tinactin?

😀

 

[dannybin1742]

actin streaming is how white blood cells move

 

[cquark]

The idea of a slow evolution ware competition for resources drives adaptation until eventually genetic drift randomly brings about a change from one species to another isn?t testable nor and thus isn?t science.

Of course, it's testable (although it's not random.) Not only that, but it's been tested and verified many times. We've observed the emergence of dozens of new species.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

The most ignorant speeches come from the most knowledgeable on this thread. It seems that the ability to think about the unquantifiable aspects of a subject is inversely related to the amount of knowledge one gains in that subject.

Thank you, when I started posting here I just wanted to take the philosophy out of the science class.

Now I?m cretin that the only way to preserve the ability to critically think about what is unknown is to introduce a variety of philosophical points of view that directly relate to whatever is being studied.

It is not about fairness. It is about what is true, what is good science, and what is factually and intellectually honest.

you may have some knowledge but do you have wisdom?

Maybe you?ll figure out what I?m about to say when you grow to become more wise, but for now I?m sure you?ll simply shift it into the paradigm that your surrounded with.

Knowledge of function is not knowledge of holistic truth.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
The most ignorant speeches come from the most knowledgeable on this thread. It seems that the ability to think about the unquantifiable aspects of a subject is inversely related to the amount of knowledge one gains in that subject.

Thank you, when I started posting here I just wanted to take the philosophy out of the science class.

Now I?m cretin that the only way to preserve the ability to critically think about what is unknown is to introduce a variety of philosophical points of view that directly relate to whatever is being studied.

It is not about fairness. It is about what is true, what is good science, and what is factually and intellectually honest.

you may have some knowledge but do you have wisdom?

Maybe you?ll figure out what I?m about to say when you grow to become more wise, but for now I?m sure you?ll simply shift it into the paradigm that your surrounded with.

Knowledge of function is not knowledge of holistic truth.

You just post a whole bunch of nonsense. Just complete and total nonsense.

You want to talk philosophy of science? Or epistemology? Go ahead, I've taken classes in those as well.

Here's some basic philsophy of science - fallability is a cornerstorne of all scientific knowledge. There must exist some test that can falsify the theory.

So what test would falsify ID?

What's that, it can't be falsified, only believed? Guess it's not science then.

And epistemology - see my Carl Sagan "Dragon in my Garage" post.

 

[homercles337]

Why are so many people that are so ignorant of the BASIC tenets of science attempting to question it? If you dont know anything about science (as evidenced by ID proponents) STFU about things you clearly know NOTHING about. I dont know anything about quantum chemistry, but i dont go spouting off about the fallicy of its methods. Why cant i expect the same from the "ignorant of science" camp?

 

[LordMagnusKain]

And epistemology - see my Carl Sagan "Dragon in my Garage" post.

but what do you derive from that given those who say they've been bit by said dragon?

You just post a whole bunch of nonsense. Just complete and total nonsense

it's because i'm to stupid to understand the complexities you speak of. I'm like an ignorant native, incapable learning as i believe that evolution started because the spider woman and sun God wanted it to.

What's that, it can't be falsified, only believed? Guess it's not science then.

glad we agree. The next question is what else is being taught in science class that can?t be falsified?

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
The next question is what else is being taught in science class that can?t be falsified?

And would it be too much to ask you to provide some examples? So far you haven't demonstrated how these various abiogenesis theories are not scientific.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

ID just says that God was the hand that drove evolution, what's the problem with saying that people disagree and that some say it's chaos and competition and others say it's God's hand, while others may well say they are one and the same?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
ID just says that God was the hand that drove evolution, what's the problem with saying that people disagree and that some say it's chaos and competition and others say it's God's hand, while others may well say they are one and the same?

Because natural selection is a theory that can and has been tested and verified, whereas goddidit isn't. Goddidit can be used to explain everything from the world being created 30 seconds ago with your post on this board to young Earth creationism, because it's not a scientific mechanism and in fact is content free.

 

[Tab]

Heh. I propose we teach "Godddit" in our schools...

Wow, that'd be funny.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin

It seems to me that these compounds would decompose to form carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and water (and sulfur oxides in the case of the thioester).

So what was the origin of these organic molecules?

It's a moot point anyway since there is compelling evidence that the atmosphere of early earth was oxidative, not reductive.

So basically you have no idea but are going to say something anyways? Figures.

No, these compounds will not decompose to CO, CO2, and H20. Of those compounds only 3 would easily decompose at all, and it would not be to CO2 and H20 (nothing decomposes that way, that is called "combustion" and involves long, straight chain n-alkanes or complex enzymes with exceedingly specific active sites).

I asked you to tell me which ones would produce oxygen in a reductive atmosphere. You simply can't do that as your knowledge of science and organic chemistry is not up to par.

You shouldn't be speaking as if you knew what you were talking about when you really have no clue.

As far as the origins of these molecules they are all simple organic molecules that are easily made. They are as simple as you can get and easy to form. That's why I chose them.

And it is not a moot point because some of them will release oxygen in a reductive atmosphere. I asked you to tell us which ones.

I did this because it isn't something that you can google your way out of - you either understand organic chemistry and can give a meaningful opinion or you don't.

And apparently you don't.

Organic compounds don't decompose when heated? Huh? So what do the compunds decompose to?

So how did these compounds form on primitive earth? By what mechanism did they release O2?

 

[LordMagnusKain]

and, if oxygen was present, and DNA oxides when exposed, how did any life form?

Not that I?m saying I know anything, ignorant native here.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin

It seems to me that these compounds would decompose to form carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and water (and sulfur oxides in the case of the thioester).

So what was the origin of these organic molecules?

It's a moot point anyway since there is compelling evidence that the atmosphere of early earth was oxidative, not reductive.

So basically you have no idea but are going to say something anyways? Figures.

No, these compounds will not decompose to CO, CO2, and H20. Of those compounds only 3 would easily decompose at all, and it would not be to CO2 and H20 (nothing decomposes that way, that is called "combustion" and involves long, straight chain n-alkanes or complex enzymes with exceedingly specific active sites).

I asked you to tell me which ones would produce oxygen in a reductive atmosphere. You simply can't do that as your knowledge of science and organic chemistry is not up to par.

You shouldn't be speaking as if you knew what you were talking about when you really have no clue.

As far as the origins of these molecules they are all simple organic molecules that are easily made. They are as simple as you can get and easy to form. That's why I chose them.

And it is not a moot point because some of them will release oxygen in a reductive atmosphere. I asked you to tell us which ones.

I did this because it isn't something that you can google your way out of - you either understand organic chemistry and can give a meaningful opinion or you don't.

And apparently you don't.

Organic compounds don't decompose when heated? Huh? So what do the compunds decompose to?

So how did these compounds form on primitive earth? By what mechanism did they release O2?

Why don't you tell us what they decompose to when heated? And also the basic mechanisms to form them...

And, again, answer the original question... which of these release oxygen in a reductive atmosphere?

Since you know that heat will decompose various things your knowledge of o-chem must include what happens in reductive atmospheres.

Go ahead, Rip, you tell us?

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

but what do you derive from that given those who say they've been bit by said dragon?

I believe that being bit by the dragon is in the same class as being burned by the dragon, which is a condition that Sagan addressed in the work that I posted. I will not repost if for you, it's in a previous post for you to read to your heart's content.

it's because i'm to stupid to understand the complexities you speak of. I'm like an ignorant native, incapable learning as i believe that evolution started because the spider woman and sun God wanted it to.

See, there is a difference between stupid and willfully ignorant. A child or an adult who is retarded lacks the capicity to understand the theory of evolution - you only lack the will.

If you were seriously interested there are literally hundreds of books that you could have read about the subject. You could have taken classes at local community colleges or watched various DVD documentaries; it's not that the information isn't out there to be found, it's that you have little desire to find it.

No, you want to believe in your little non-sense so badly that you really don't care to know more about evolution.

You cannot conceive of the possibility that maybe there was no divine influence. That is where you break from honest-seeker-of-truth to fool pushing flim-flam. This does not mean that atheism is a requisite for evolution (it isn't, evolution, like all sciences, only addresses questions that it can answer and is thus theologically neutral) - but by failing to allow all possibilities you are not being intellectually honest.

Like all creationists you try to mouth the words of evolution without knowing their meaning ("I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV" phenomena) so that you can convince other people, equally bad at science, how wrongheaded and foolish evolution is. It's dishonest.

glad we agree. The next question is what else is being taught in science class that can?t be falsified?

Nothing else is being taught in science class that can't be falsified, unless of course it is inserted into the curriculum by religious fundamentalists to make sure that their beliefs aren't insulted.

There is nothing in science that can't be falsified. This is what gives it such awesome power and why we can do the things that we can with it - build cars, do surgery, etc.

Seriously, tell me 1 thing that is taught in science class that can't be falsified (and remember that evolution absolutely can be falsified).

You're not stupid, you're willfully ignorant, which is much, much worse.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

If you were seriously interested there are literally hundreds of books that you could have read about the subject.

aquatic ape theory is fun, no?

my statement if "stupid" was clearly to make you think. You got far enough to figure out that the native American isn't stupid but then you call him willfully ignorant. A sad commentary on your ability to understand cultures that are outside your own.

Nothing else is being taught in science class that can't be falsified

http://arlingtonschools.org/Curriculum/bioa.html
http://schoolnotes.com/24162/dgato2002.html

can't falsify abiogenists or how things "might have formed"

Evolution has absolutely no effect on medicine, adaptation does but not species to species evolution.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

If you were seriously interested there are literally hundreds of books that you could have read about the subject.

aquatic ape theory is fun, no?

my statement if "stupid" was clearly to make you think. You got far enough to figure out that the native American isn't stupid but then you call him willfully ignorant. A sad commentary on your ability to understand cultures that are outside your own.

Nothing else is being taught in science class that can't be falsified

http://arlingtonschools.org/Curriculum/bioa.html
http://schoolnotes.com/24162/dgato2002.html

can't falsify abiogenists or how things "might have formed"

Evolution has absolutely no effect on medicine, adaptation does but not species to species evolution.

I looked over those syllabi. I don't see anything that is not standard science - care to point out the parts that are full of unfalsifiable allegations?

And you can falsify abiogenesis theories. Case in point: whether the early earth was reductive or not. Some reactions work in reductive atmospheres but not in oxidative ones and vice versa.

So if we work out a complex chain of how an early RNA molecule could have formed in a reductive atmosphere but it turns out that the atmosphere was really oxidative we have just falsified that theory.

We simply don't know enough yet to make such statements but that does not preclude us from knowing enough in the future. This is called "research."

As far as your comment that evolution isn't helpful in medicine I simply ask you where you got your MD. I have already provided a clear example of the usefulness of evolution in modern medical practice.

And as far as interspecies utility I merely need to point to HIV and the complicated ways in which it interacts with both humans and other primates, including chimpanzees, and how evolutionary knowledge of HIV underlies all current HIV treatment theories.

You are so uneducated it is laughable. Pick up a book sometime.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Abiogenesis? RNA Hypothesis. That's a testable Hypothesis. And the evidence is mounting. RNA is the only organic molecule that contains genetic material, possibly can self replicate, and can catalyze reactions.

Creation of organic molecules from inorganic molecules? Testable by experiments like Miller.

good, that doesn?t change what I?m saying, but let?s be forthright here:

organic does not imply living

Actually, you misunderstand. The RNA hypothesis involves organic material. That prompts the question: where does the organic material come from? And the Miller experiment is an effort to answer that.

Except that Miller used methane, ammonia and water vapor in the experiment while the primitive earth contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen, he assumed that oxygen was non existent while findings show that that there was a huge amount of oxygen was present, and Miller's device had a cold trap to isolate amino acids from the environment as they were formed while no such mechanism exists in nature to protect amino acids from destructive elements.

Ferris and Chen repeated the experiment with gases present in the primitive earth and not a single amino acid was formed.

How long ago are we talking rip? By all current indications oxygen levels didn't rise till photosynthetic life proliferated.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

We spend literally billions of dollars every year investigating things like magnatism and other 'black boxes', trying to better understand how they work.

and you have literally millions of atheists who have no need want or desire to understand that these black-boxes exist because philosophy built around science makes them more ignorant. Just as bad as "saying 'well God just makes it work that way'" is saying "well magnetism makes it work that way", replacing ignorance with ignorance isn't progress, it's pretension.

The problem isn't that scientists aren't investigating the fundamental forces of nature, because they are--that's what particle physics is all about: trying to understand the four fundamental forces. Magnetism is a relativistic effect of electric fields, which arise from charged particles exchanging virtual photons.

We also know that the electromagnetic force is the result of spontaneous symmetry breaking of the unified electroweak force, because we've been able to re-unify the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces in particle accelerators then break them into two separate forces again.

Our understanding of the fundamental forces of the universe is much deeper than you realize, and they're not at all something that we avoid investigating.

 

[cquark]

We all know all the lore of our great protestant scientific forefathers who liberated us from the evil clutches of the Catholic Church.

But, crazy as this sounds, almost every last one of them was a Christian, did believe that God makes it work that way but also wanted to know HOW God made it work that way.

The essential question isn?t do we deny Gods hand as, again, early science was almost purely a theological endeavor, but do we ask how.

Actually, when you read the biographies of the early scientists like Newton or histories of the early scientific era, it's amazing to see how much effort and time they wasted struggling with mystical and religious issues which they didn't realize until too late that they had nothing to do with their investigations of physics, chemistry, and biology. Newton spent less than 20% of his working lifetime on optics, mechanics, and the calculus, and wasted the rest of it on his fruitless devotion to the supposed wisdom of the ancient Jews and Christians. They could've accomplished so much more without religion to turn them away from experimentally verifiable investigations of nature.

 

[dannybin1742]

Organic compounds don't decompose when heated? Huh? So what do the compunds decompose to?

So how did these compounds form on primitive earth? By what mechanism did they release O2?

stop asking questions that were already answered

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin

It seems to me that these compounds would decompose to form carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and water (and sulfur oxides in the case of the thioester).

So what was the origin of these organic molecules?

It's a moot point anyway since there is compelling evidence that the atmosphere of early earth was oxidative, not reductive.

So basically you have no idea but are going to say something anyways? Figures.

No, these compounds will not decompose to CO, CO2, and H20. Of those compounds only 3 would easily decompose at all, and it would not be to CO2 and H20 (nothing decomposes that way, that is called "combustion" and involves long, straight chain n-alkanes or complex enzymes with exceedingly specific active sites).

I asked you to tell me which ones would produce oxygen in a reductive atmosphere. You simply can't do that as your knowledge of science and organic chemistry is not up to par.

You shouldn't be speaking as if you knew what you were talking about when you really have no clue.

As far as the origins of these molecules they are all simple organic molecules that are easily made. They are as simple as you can get and easy to form. That's why I chose them.

And it is not a moot point because some of them will release oxygen in a reductive atmosphere. I asked you to tell us which ones.

I did this because it isn't something that you can google your way out of - you either understand organic chemistry and can give a meaningful opinion or you don't.

And apparently you don't.

Of course, O2 might be a reduction product of ozone (O3) or an ozonide (an ozone adduct).

I don't know how you can get O2 from the classes of organic compounds you listed in a reductive enviroment.

What exactly are you trying to prove?

As far as the origins of these molecules they are all simple organic molecules that are easily made. They are as simple as you can get and easy to form. That's why I chose them.

Okay, so explain how they were formed on primitive earth.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
As far as the origins of these molecules they are all simple organic molecules that are easily made. They are as simple as you can get and easy to form. That's why I chose them.

Okay, so explain how they were formed on primitive earth.

A variety of experiments using the Miller-Urey apparatus with different gas mixtures to match different possibilities for the composition of the early atmosphere have produced all 20 amino acids and a wide variety of other organic molecules. Sidney Fox showed how amino acid chains could form non-organically on a rock, sand, or clay substrate. Mixing his chains with water resulted in the formation of microspheres surrounded by selectively permeable membranes.

The Earth also receives organic molecules from space. We've continually discovering new varieties organic molecules in space. NASA astrobiologist Peter Jenniskens observed the Leonid meteor shower in 1999 and discovered that the organic materials in the meteors survived re-entry and impact with the Earth. Molecules as complex as amino acids have been discovered in such meteors.

 

[Stunt]

Good to hear this will not be implemented into the curriculum.

If parents want their kids to learn about religion and ID, do it at home as this is where they spend most of their time anyway.