Darwin vs DNA

[The Irish Ram]

Did someone say amino acids?

All amino acids have side groups of atoms. The proteins that make up living cells are composed of long thin lines of amino acids only one millionth the size of the human hair. The smallest living thing contains more than 500 amino acids.
Scientists have found that 50% of the side groups of atoms that are attached to NON-LIVING amino acids are on the left side. And another 50% are on the right side.

Biologists have found that the atoms on the proteins on LIVING cells are "left handed" only. Living cells can only exist if the atoms on the proteins are on the left side with 0 on the right side.
Scientists calculated the probability that amino acids could accidentally form chains of atoms solely on the left side by chance as a scientific impossibility.

That primordial soup is responsible for, or capable of, directing atoms to the right or left of an acid, in equal halves (50/50), or forbidding 50% of those atoms to form on any given side by accident, to create a living cell, is a cruel joke on mankind.

 

[LOki]

You keep referencing this "God" thing. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Because you don't listen.

You keep referencing this Darwinian thing. i don't know what your talking about.

I have not referenced any "Darwinian" thing. I don't subscribe to the cult of personality that superstitious opponents to the theory of evolution have created, for people who prefer to describe objective reality by applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.

And if you have attempted to answer me directly--link to it.

If you're anything like the retards who dishonestly reference the "Darwinian" thing they created, then I am certain you will just as dishonestly find some rationalization for refusing to admit that it is impossible to link to a post that just does not exist.

Yet there is a solution for that.

Explain your "God" thing. I have no idea what you're talking about. You've gone on, and on about this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.

Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Those clearly don't count, right? These self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of "God" things are obviously fraudulent.

So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.

 

[konradv]

Did someone say amino acids?

All amino acids have side groups of atoms. The proteins that make up living cells are composed of long thin lines of amino acids only one millionth the size of the human hair. The smallest living thing contains more than 500 amino acids.
Scientists have found that 50% of the side groups of atoms that are attached to NON-LIVING amino acids are on the left side. And another 50% are on the right side.

Biologists have found that the atoms on the proteins on LIVING cells are "left handed" only. Living cells can only exist if the atoms on the proteins are on the left side with 0 on the right side.
Scientists calculated the probability that amino acids could accidentally form chains of atoms solely on the left side by chance as a scientific impossibility.

That primordial soup is responsible for, or capable of, directing atoms to the right or left of an acid, in equal halves (50/50), or forbidding 50% of those atoms to form on any given side by accident, to create a living cell, is a cruel joke on mankind.

Only one kind was selected, because spatially only one type would work. That has nothing to to do with intelligence, rather it's geometry.

Speaking of their coding, why would some have only one codon, while others have up to six? That's what I was talking about, not chirality, but since I addressed your point, how about addressing mine?

 

[LOki]

Did someone say amino acids?

All amino acids have side groups of atoms. The proteins that make up living cells are composed of long thin lines of amino acids only one millionth the size of the human hair. The smallest living thing contains more than 500 amino acids.
Scientists have found that 50% of the side groups of atoms that are attached to NON-LIVING amino acids are on the left side. And another 50% are on the right side.

Biologists have found that the atoms on the proteins on LIVING cells are "left handed" only. Living cells can only exist if the atoms on the proteins are on the left side with 0 on the right side.
Scientists calculated the probability that amino acids could accidentally form chains of atoms solely on the left side by chance as a scientific impossibility.

That primordial soup is responsible for, or capable of, directing atoms to the right or left of an acid, in equal halves (50/50), or forbidding 50% of those atoms to form on any given side by accident, to create a living cell, is a cruel joke on mankind.

Only one kind was selected, because spatially only one type would work. That has nothing to to do with intelligence, rather it's geometry.

Speaking of their coding, why would some have only one codon, while others have up to six? That's what I was talking about, not chirality, but since I addressed your point, how about addressing mine?

See also THIS.

 

[LOki]

Also,

Did someone say amino acids?

All amino acids have side groups of atoms. The proteins that make up living cells are composed of long thin lines of amino acids only one millionth the size of the human hair. The smallest living thing contains more than 500 amino acids.
Scientists have found that 50% of the side groups of atoms that are attached to NON-LIVING amino acids are on the left side. And another 50% are on the right side.

Biologists have found that the atoms on the proteins on LIVING cells are "left handed" only. Living cells can only exist if the atoms on the proteins are on the left side with 0 on the right side.
Scientists calculated the probability that amino acids could accidentally form chains of atoms solely on the left side by chance as a scientific impossibility.

That primordial soup is responsible for, or capable of, directing atoms to the right or left of an acid, in equal halves (50/50), or forbidding 50% of those atoms to form on any given side by accident, to create a living cell, is a cruel joke on mankind.

Ahem ... :

Scientists calculated the probability that amino acids actually formed chains of atoms solely on the left side to be a scientific certainty.​

 

[sakinago]

Vacuous Truth.

Appeal to Consequences

Well, it IS there, and it DOES do what it does ...

Non-Sequitur.

How about ... IMAGINARY?

Ok. How about ... SPECULATIVE HYPOTHESIS, then?

No the problem here is that what you are saying is not terribly different than what these guys are saying:

Okay loki, if you want to call my arguments vacuous, then disprove them. Where does the logic break down in my vacuous statements.

For explanations, CLICK ON THE LINKS I provide in the responses, you fucking retard.

Don't forget that that your "Deity" is entirely a construct of your dereistic imagination.

And another no duh statement. Really speculate hypothesis??? How does that even come close describing string or higgs theories. Labeling is not the same thing as describing, and you missed the point.

I will allow that I may miss the points you think you're making, but I have proven throughout our interactions that I don't miss any of the points you actually make.

The following is a case in point:

You completely missed the point on spacetime there (whether on purpose or accidental). The point is, you can sit back and watch the sun go up and down and accept it, or you can ask the most important question in science which is why. Without those key people in our history asking the question why, we would still be riding horses into town.

Asking the questions is not nearly enough. Every culture asked the questions reference; the difference between the ones who throw stones at each other and who use stones to build schools; the difference between those who launch rockets at each other and who launch rockets to explore Mars, is the difference between applying a "Deity" as an explanation as opposed to valid logic applied to verifiable evidence for an explanation.

See here is the problem with what you are trying to claim that I am saying. You have the whole time been trying to say that I am using diety to explain everything, which I have not. The only use of a diety I have used is outside of the universe, thats where it stops for me. And then that conversation would get into is the universe infinite or finite (the two schools of thought). And then the conversation would probably go in the direction of a very very complicated chicken and egg, which is why I didnt feel like getting into it. And like I said I dont even know what that diety (dont like that word) is like, it could be a fucking cat for all I know (and no I dont think it would be anything we can relate too like a cat). But the only thing ive used a "god" to explain things is the way its looking more and more like a finite universe and the problem of fine tuning. Theres been other weak explanations for fine tuning... theyre definitly interesting to hear but are weak, and raise way more questions then they answer.

And labeling is not disproving. If you try to argue against 2+2=4, calling it addition is not valid argument.

 

[LOki]

Okay loki, if you want to call my arguments vacuous, then disprove them. Where does the logic break down in my vacuous statements.

For explanations, CLICK ON THE LINKS I provide in the responses, you fucking retard.

Don't forget that that your "Deity" is entirely a construct of your dereistic imagination.

I will allow that I may miss the points you think you're making, but I have proven throughout our interactions that I don't miss any of the points you actually make.

The following is a case in point:

You completely missed the point on spacetime there (whether on purpose or accidental). The point is, you can sit back and watch the sun go up and down and accept it, or you can ask the most important question in science which is why. Without those key people in our history asking the question why, we would still be riding horses into town.

Asking the questions is not nearly enough. Every culture asked the questions reference; the difference between the ones who throw stones at each other and who use stones to build schools; the difference between those who launch rockets at each other and who launch rockets to explore Mars, is the difference between applying a "Deity" as an explanation as opposed to valid logic applied to verifiable evidence for an explanation.

See here is the problem with what you are trying to claim that I am saying. You have the whole time been trying to say that I am using diety to explain everything, which I have not. The only use of a diety I have used is outside of the universe, thats where it stops for me.

You are a liar.

And then that conversation would get into is the universe infinite or finite (the two schools of thought). And then the conversation would probably go in the direction of a very very complicated chicken and egg, which is why I didnt feel like getting into it. And like I said I dont even know what that diety (dont like that word) is like, it could be a fucking cat for all I know (and no I dont think it would be anything we can relate too like a cat).

Why don't you decide? This "Deity" you postulate is your own invention. It's entirely imaginary.

But the only thing ive used a "god" to explain things is the way its looking more and more like a finite universe and the problem of fine tuning. Theres been other weak explanations for fine tuning... theyre definitly interesting to hear but are weak, and raise way more questions then they answer.

There's no real problem of fine tuning. This "problem" only arises when you insist upon a fine "Tuner"--your "Deity", for example.

And labeling is not disproving. If you try to argue against 2+2=4, calling it addition is not valid argument.

Faulty metaphor. I'm not arguing against addition. I am pointing out that your addition is not grammar. I'm pointing out that your logic is invalid. I'm pointing out the exact logical fallacies you are employing. So what's your point? Something else that you're just imagining?

 

[paravani]

The Bible is NOT a reliable source for Physics, nor Calculus, nor even basic trigonometry.

Girl, you need to stop making excuses based on the Bible, because I can assure that God does NOT like His Children to use His Word as an excuse to remain ignorant -- that is, without learning.

If you want to talk about His laws of Physics, Chemistry, or Mathematics, you need to look in the books where those are taught. Stop proclaiming your own ignorance as if you think stupidity is declared a virtue in the Bible. You are impressing no one, neither atheists nor intelligent, educated faithful.

Get yourself back to school, and stop wasting so much time displaying your ignorance as if it's something to be proud of.

-- Paravani

How does that even come close describing string or higgs theories.

And how do theories masquerade as law? Prove that we used to be monkeys. Prove that strings exist.......
God said if we don't understand physics by reading Genesis, then we have failed the test of understanding. Nachmanides read Genesis, and passed the test with an A+. (in the year 1263)
Einstein relied on his own understanding and got a "C+".
Hawking is just sitting down at his desk...............

 

[sakinago]

For explanations, CLICK ON THE LINKS I provide in the responses, you fucking retard.

Don't forget that that your "Deity" is entirely a construct of your dereistic imagination.

I will allow that I may miss the points you think you're making, but I have proven throughout our interactions that I don't miss any of the points you actually make.

The following is a case in point:
Asking the questions is not nearly enough. Every culture asked the questions reference; the difference between the ones who throw stones at each other and who use stones to build schools; the difference between those who launch rockets at each other and who launch rockets to explore Mars, is the difference between applying a "Deity" as an explanation as opposed to valid logic applied to verifiable evidence for an explanation.

See here is the problem with what you are trying to claim that I am saying. You have the whole time been trying to say that I am using diety to explain everything, which I have not. The only use of a diety I have used is outside of the universe, thats where it stops for me.

You are a liar.

Why don't you decide? This "Deity" you postulate is your own invention. It's entirely imaginary.

But the only thing ive used a "god" to explain things is the way its looking more and more like a finite universe and the problem of fine tuning. Theres been other weak explanations for fine tuning... theyre definitly interesting to hear but are weak, and raise way more questions then they answer.

There's no real problem of fine tuning. This "problem" only arises when you insist upon a fine "Tuner"--your "Deity", for example.

And labeling is not disproving. If you try to argue against 2+2=4, calling it addition is not valid argument.

Faulty metaphor. I'm not arguing against addition. I am pointing out that your addition is not grammar. I'm pointing out that your logic is invalid. I'm pointing out the exact logical fallacies you are employing. So what's your point? Something else that you're just imagining?

How the hell does that make me a liar? Is it your consequently life argument again, please. If thats the case then I will say once again... life is a by-product of the universe, getting kind of tired of repeating myself.

And how can you use the word metaphor, and then still take what I say literally. Your just changing the argument (or simply just missing the points?). And if the logic is faulty then disprove it, I am inviting you. And do so without using a website like religous philosophy, do you get all your scientific info from a site called religious philosophy? Nice peer reviewed source, and its in no way shape or form biased. Is that the same site that tries to scientifically prove why flouride in water is bad, or vaccines cause autism. Open a physics book, take a class.

Oh, and like I said labeling is not an argument. I can label you a liar, but because I say it, it doesnt make it true, same goes for you. Duh. You can label the logic I use one way but, again prove it, what I am talking about (fine tuning, infinite/finite, and what it means) are huge discussion points in physics, like euthinasia in healthcare.

 

[LOki]

See here is the problem with what you are trying to claim that I am saying. You have the whole time been trying to say that I am using diety to explain everything, which I have not. The only use of a diety I have used is outside of the universe, thats where it stops for me.

You are a liar.

Why don't you decide? This "Deity" you postulate is your own invention. It's entirely imaginary.

There's no real problem of fine tuning. This "problem" only arises when you insist upon a fine "Tuner"--your "Deity", for example.

And labeling is not disproving. If you try to argue against 2+2=4, calling it addition is not valid argument.

Faulty metaphor. I'm not arguing against addition. I am pointing out that your addition is not grammar. I'm pointing out that your logic is invalid. I'm pointing out the exact logical fallacies you are employing. So what's your point? Something else that you're just imagining?

How the hell does that make me a liar? Is it your consequently life argument again, please. If thats the case then I will say once again... life is a by-product of the universe, getting kind of tired of repeating myself.

If your "Deity" is so far removed reality that it has no influence what-so-ever, then your assertion of this "Deity" is vacuous.

On the other hand, if you assert this "Deity" of yours indeed had/has influence then you are a liar as demonstrated.

And how can you use the word metaphor, and then still take what I say literally.

Because you clearly used a metaphor, when you compared your point and my response to addition, that's how.

Your just changing the argument (or simply just missing the points?).

I am not changing the argument or missing any point you actually make.

And if the logic is faulty then disprove it, I am inviting you.

Done. The fact that you are so thoroughly removed from any sense of reality is not refutation that I have done so.

And do so without using a website like religous philosophy, do you get all your scientific info from a site called religious philosophy?

You see, you're just thoroughly retarded. It was clear that you have yet to be introduced to the WEAK ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE, and the link led to a pretty good explanation of it.

Nice peer reviewed source, and its in no way shape or form biased. Is that the same site that tries to scientifically prove why flouride in water is bad, or vaccines cause autism. Open a physics book, take a class.

Oh. I had no idea you presented a peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Please link to ita agian, and let's just see whether or not it also tries to scientifically prove why flouride in water is bad, or vaccines cause autism.

Open a physics book, take a class, indeed.

Oh, and like I said labeling is not an argument.

Neither is your denial of reality.

I can label you a liar, but because I say it, it doesnt make it true, same goes for you. Duh.

Of course not.

You can label the logic I use one way but, again prove it,....

The discussion is in the links ... you should attempt to read them.

... what I am talking about (fine tuning, infinite/finite, and what it means) are huge discussion points in physics, like euthinasia in healthcare.

There's no real problem of fine tuning. This "problem" only arises when you insist upon a fine "Tuner"--your "Deity", for example.

 

[sakinago]

You are a liar.

Why don't you decide? This "Deity" you postulate is your own invention. It's entirely imaginary.

There's no real problem of fine tuning. This "problem" only arises when you insist upon a fine "Tuner"--your "Deity", for example.

Faulty metaphor. I'm not arguing against addition. I am pointing out that your addition is not grammar. I'm pointing out that your logic is invalid. I'm pointing out the exact logical fallacies you are employing. So what's your point? Something else that you're just imagining?

How the hell does that make me a liar? Is it your consequently life argument again, please. If thats the case then I will say once again... life is a by-product of the universe, getting kind of tired of repeating myself.

If your "Deity" is so far removed reality that it has no influence what-so-ever, then your assertion of this "Deity" is vacuous.

On the other hand, if you assert this "Deity" of yours indeed had/has influence then you are a liar as demonstrated.

Because you clearly used a metaphor, when you compared your point and my response to addition, that's how.

I am not changing the argument or missing any point you actually make.

Done. The fact that you are so thoroughly removed from any sense of reality is not refutation that I have done so.

You see, you're just thoroughly retarded. It was clear that you have yet to be introduced to the WEAK ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE, and the link led to a pretty good explanation of it.

Oh. I had no idea you presented a peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Please link to ita agian, and let's just see whether or not it also tries to scientifically prove why flouride in water is bad, or vaccines cause autism.

Open a physics book, take a class, indeed.

Neither is your denial of reality.

Of course not.

You can label the logic I use one way but, again prove it,....

The discussion is in the links ... you should attempt to read them.

... what I am talking about (fine tuning, infinite/finite, and what it means) are huge discussion points in physics, like euthinasia in healthcare.

There's no real problem of fine tuning. This "problem" only arises when you insist upon a fine "Tuner"--your "Deity", for example.

I have already stated that the conversation of a diety for me stops with pre-universe. Your argument is based on claims that the conversation is somehow continued, despite me shooting those claims down, over, and over. Then you want to send me to a link called religous philosophy.info, thats a joke. Im pretty sure I could type in alienswalkamongus.info and there would be a site for that. What I am saying about physics is common knowledge. And yes I have taken 2 classes, didnt have to for my major, one was conceptual, and one was the nitty gritty math. And yes I do do my reading, if you were to take a look at my bathroom, I have both popular science and scientific american on the toilet (ignoring my g/fs magizines). If you were to take a look at my library (its small but its getting there) Its made up of 75% of physics and astronomy, 1 book about prions, a couple poker books, and (this is hard to admit) but the hunger games series and a couple of other thrillers.

And now your problem seems to be with the word tuning. Sorry, I didnt coin the term, some minds greater than mine did, and they called it that because that is what it kind of looks like. And If it is such a weak argument, then why are those great minds out there "wasting" their time putting together theories to try to explain it?

And those out there trying argue against evolution are trying to attack chemical evolution, and your sitting there labeling their arguments instead of using science, and saying what about the headway we've made simulating meteor strikes that produce amino acids. Or just shutting their argument completely down and saying, well when you look at what genetics does, or how do you explain the variety of animals living close by in the same ecosystems but separated by some sort of barrier?

 

[LOki]

How the hell does that make me a liar? Is it your consequently life argument again, please. If thats the case then I will say once again... life is a by-product of the universe, getting kind of tired of repeating myself.

If your "Deity" is so far removed reality that it has no influence what-so-ever, then your assertion of this "Deity" is vacuous.

On the other hand, if you assert this "Deity" of yours indeed had/has influence then you are a liar as demonstrated.

Because you clearly used a metaphor, when you compared your point and my response to addition, that's how.

I am not changing the argument or missing any point you actually make.

Done. The fact that you are so thoroughly removed from any sense of reality is not refutation that I have done so.

You see, you're just thoroughly retarded. It was clear that you have yet to be introduced to the WEAK ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE, and the link led to a pretty good explanation of it.

Oh. I had no idea you presented a peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Please link to ita agian, and let's just see whether or not it also tries to scientifically prove why flouride in water is bad, or vaccines cause autism.

Open a physics book, take a class, indeed.

Neither is your denial of reality.

Of course not.

The discussion is in the links ... you should attempt to read them.

... what I am talking about (fine tuning, infinite/finite, and what it means) are huge discussion points in physics, like euthinasia in healthcare.

There's no real problem of fine tuning. This "problem" only arises when you insist upon a fine "Tuner"--your "Deity", for example.

I have already stated that the conversation of a diety for me stops with pre-universe.

So you're going with vacuous then. Fine.

Your argument is based on claims that the conversation is somehow continued, despite me shooting those claims down, over, and over.

I'm not the one who continued on with how things were "designed," and "made for," etc. That's all you Pumpkin. I was just pointing out that your creationist premises are transparent.

Then you want to send me to a link called religous philosophy.info, thats a joke.

No. YOU'RE a joke.

Im pretty sure I could type in alienswalkamongus.info and there would be a site for that.

I'm sure you could. I'm pretty sure you did, and that's where you get all your validation for this "Deity" you posit.

What I am saying about physics is common knowledge.

What you are saying is common superstition.

And yes I have taken 2 classes, didnt have to for my major, one was conceptual, and one was the nitty gritty math. And yes I do do my reading, if you were to take a look at my bathroom, I have both popular science and scientific american on the toilet (ignoring my g/fs magizines). If you were to take a look at my library (its small but its getting there) Its made up of 75% of physics and astronomy, 1 book about prions, a couple poker books, and (this is hard to admit) but the hunger games series and a couple of other thrillers.

Thank for sharing.

And now your problem seems to be with the word tuning.

It's not my problem at all. It's yours.

Sorry, I didnt coin the term, some minds greater than mine did, and they called it that because that is what it kind of looks like. And If it is such a weak argument, then why are those great minds out there "wasting" their time putting together theories to try to explain it?

To validate their creation "science."

And those out there trying argue against evolution are trying to attack chemical evolution, ...

So what?

... and your sitting there labeling their arguments instead of using science, and saying what about the headway we've made simulating meteor strikes that produce amino acids.

Or just shutting their argument completely down and saying, well when you look at what genetics does, or how do you explain the variety of animals living close by in the same ecosystems but separated by some sort of barrier?

Is this another example of you "using their logic against them?

 

[sakinago]

If your "Deity" is so far removed reality that it has no influence what-so-ever, then your assertion of this "Deity" is vacuous.

On the other hand, if you assert this "Deity" of yours indeed had/has influence then you are a liar as demonstrated.

Because you clearly used a metaphor, when you compared your point and my response to addition, that's how.

I am not changing the argument or missing any point you actually make.

Done. The fact that you are so thoroughly removed from any sense of reality is not refutation that I have done so.

You see, you're just thoroughly retarded. It was clear that you have yet to be introduced to the WEAK ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE, and the link led to a pretty good explanation of it.

Oh. I had no idea you presented a peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Please link to ita agian, and let's just see whether or not it also tries to scientifically prove why flouride in water is bad, or vaccines cause autism.

Open a physics book, take a class, indeed.

Neither is your denial of reality.

Of course not.

The discussion is in the links ... you should attempt to read them.

There's no real problem of fine tuning. This "problem" only arises when you insist upon a fine "Tuner"--your "Deity", for example.

I have already stated that the conversation of a diety for me stops with pre-universe.

So you're going with vacuous then. Fine.

I'm not the one who continued on with how things were "designed," and "made for," etc. That's all you Pumpkin. I was just pointing out that your creationist premises are transparent.

No. YOU'RE a joke.

I'm sure you could. I'm pretty sure you did, and that's where you get all your validation for this "Deity" you posit.

What you are saying is common superstition.

Thank for sharing.

It's not my problem at all. It's yours.

To validate their creation "science."

So what?

... and your sitting there labeling their arguments instead of using science, and saying what about the headway we've made simulating meteor strikes that produce amino acids.

Or just shutting their argument completely down and saying, well when you look at what genetics does, or how do you explain the variety of animals living close by in the same ecosystems but separated by some sort of barrier?

Is this another example of you "using their logic against them?

There you go again labeling, by your standards half of physics theories out there are vacuous, and it is not possible that time is an illusion because it is a vacuous statement, go ahead and submit that to geneva, they will be thrilled with your work. Why have we been trying so many experiments when we could just label science. On top of that your first sentence is indeed a vacuous statement itself, get hypocritical much?

And now were getting back into what I meant by the word design, my post clearly point to the meaning being function. I think its kind of hard to argue that one. And let me throw another point out there, if I didnt mean function by it then why was I so shocked that you were trying to argue against it? If I did believe that I thought that god had come in and told animals when to evolve, that would be a pretty weak argument that would be subject to individual interpretation... if anything at all. If that were the case, then I could only say, "well thats just the way I see it," as opposed to "what the hell are you talking about, and let me explain genetics to you." Now, I figure you are going to try to answer this point much like you did my point on "why are scientist out there making theories to try to explain fine tuning." That was a terrible point you made, and I think you know it too, because if anything, those great minds are trying to do the exact opposite.

A cuckoo emoticon is your response to one of the most exciting studies in biology? Someone needs to their research. Oh, and I am not sure how you can connect those dots between my statements and asking if thats me using their logic against them. Unless you dont believe in those statements I made then I guess that might make sense (thats a stretch). But hey, if you dont have a good point to make, I guess just run around it, right.

 

[LOki]

There you go again labeling, ...

Boring.

... by your standards half of physics theories out there are vacuous, ...

Nonsense.

... and it is not possible that time is an illusion because it is a vacuous statement, ...

Boring.

... go ahead and submit that to geneva, they will be thrilled with your work.

Nonsense.

Why have we been trying so many experiments when we could just label science.

Boring.

On top of that your first sentence is indeed a vacuous statement itself, get hypocritical much?

Boring nonsense. All boring nonsense.

And now were getting back into what I meant by the word design, my post clearly point to the meaning being function. I think its kind of hard to argue that one.

No, it was pretty easy; being self-evident and all.

And let me throw another point out there, if I didnt mean function by it then why was I so shocked that you were trying to argue against it?

Shock is the typical reaction from the superstitious when the reality of their "Deity"--who designed/created/made all of existence such that it is "finely tuned" for human existence--is disputed.

If I did believe that I thought that god had come in and told animals when to evolve, that would be a pretty weak argument that would be subject to individual interpretation... if anything at all.

If that were the case, then I could only say, "well thats just the way I see it," as opposed to "what the hell are you talking about, and let me explain genetics to you."

Which just amounted to being a smoke-screen to cover the fact that your creationist credentials have been exposed.

Now, I figure you are going to try to answer this point much like you did my point on "why are scientist out there making theories to try to explain fine tuning."

LOLercaust! You called them "scientists."

That was a terrible point you made, and I think you know it too, because if anything, those great minds are trying to do the exact opposite.

Really? That's just fascinating! Please go on... ! Tell us more!

A cuckoo emoticon is your response to one of the most exciting studies in biology?

More of your boring nonsense.

Someone needs to their research.

That would be you ... AFTER you've become better acquainted with a dictionary, how logic actually works, and being scientifically literate.

Oh, and I am not sure how you can connect those dots between my statements and asking if thats me using their logic against them.

It's not my fault that there's no sense to your non-logic.

you dont believe in those statements I made then I guess that might make sense (thats a stretch). But hey, if you dont have a good point to make, I guess just run around it, right.

Look buddy, wake me up when you submit that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend.

 

[sakinago]

There you go again labeling, ...

Boring.

... by your standards half of physics theories out there are vacuous, ...

Nonsense.

Boring.

Nonsense.

Boring.

Boring nonsense. All boring nonsense.

No, it was pretty easy; being self-evident and all.

Shock is the typical reaction from the superstitious when the reality of their "Deity"--who designed/created/made all of existence such that it is "finely tuned" for human existence--is disputed.



Which just amounted to being a smoke-screen to cover the fact that your creationist credentials have been exposed.

LOLercaust! You called them "scientists."

Really? That's just fascinating! Please go on... ! Tell us more!

More of your boring nonsense.

That would be you ... AFTER you've become better acquainted with a dictionary, how logic actually works, and being scientifically literate.

Oh, and I am not sure how you can connect those dots between my statements and asking if thats me using their logic against them.

It's not my fault that there's no sense to your non-logic.

you dont believe in those statements I made then I guess that might make sense (thats a stretch). But hey, if you dont have a good point to make, I guess just run around it, right.

Look buddy, wake me up when you submit that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend.

Wow, bringing out the big guns there loki, boring and nonsense. Like I said if you dont have a point just run around it then.

Lets not forget your other big guns, a .info site, and a small section in wikipedia. Here is an article that will catch you up on the conversations going on in physics, and its from a .org site by the way, NPR to be exact. Took me maybe a few seconds to find this, like I said it is common knowledge in physics. One Universe Too Many? String Theories, The Multiverse And The Future Of Physics. : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR
lets get you caught up.

Oh and apparently I was so shocked by your statement against my theory that god told animals when to evolve, that I felt the need to explain genetics to you like you were a child. Hmm, that doesn't really add up to me.

Oh, and now the study you called cuckoo before has been downgraded to simply boring. Did you finally do your research? I hope so.

 

[LOki]

Wow, bringing out the big guns there loki, boring and nonsense.

I don't need a cannon to swat a fly.

Like I said if you dont have a point just run around it then.

Boring.

Lets not forget your other big guns, a .info site, and a small section in wikipedia. Here is an article that will catch you up on the conversations going on in physics, and its from a .org site by the way, NPR to be exact. Took me maybe a few seconds to find this, like I said it is common knowledge in physics. One Universe Too Many? String Theories, The Multiverse And The Future Of Physics. : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR
lets get you caught up.

Oh and apparently I was so shocked by your statement against my theory that god told animals when to evolve, that I felt the need to explain genetics to you like you were a child. Hmm, that doesn't really add up to me.

Oh, and now the study you called cuckoo before has been downgraded to simply boring. Did you finally do your research? I hope so.

Yeah. I couldn't find a link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Care to supply it?

 

[sakinago]

Wow, bringing out the big guns there loki, boring and nonsense.

I don't need a cannon to swat a fly.

Like I said if you dont have a point just run around it then.

Boring.

Lets not forget your other big guns, a .info site, and a small section in wikipedia. Here is an article that will catch you up on the conversations going on in physics, and its from a .org site by the way, NPR to be exact. Took me maybe a few seconds to find this, like I said it is common knowledge in physics. One Universe Too Many? String Theories, The Multiverse And The Future Of Physics. : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR
lets get you caught up.

Oh and apparently I was so shocked by your statement against my theory that god told animals when to evolve, that I felt the need to explain genetics to you like you were a child. Hmm, that doesn't really add up to me.

Oh, and now the study you called cuckoo before has been downgraded to simply boring. Did you finally do your research? I hope so.

Yeah. I couldn't find a link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Care to supply it?

Did you read the entire article? Im going to assume you understood it because its pretty dumbed down. If you did you would realize that once you get into physics that deep, there is no experimental evidence to support any of those theories out there. Matter of fact the only theory out there with experimental evidence in its favor seems to be fine tuning. The whole point is all science at this level is pretty much conceptual, you can crunch numbers to support your theory, but that will never upgrade it from being a theory. This is why we have so many different working theories in string theory, multi-verse theory, and quantum gravity.

You are asking the wrong question.

 

[LOki]

Wow, bringing out the big guns there loki, boring and nonsense.

I don't need a cannon to swat a fly.

Boring.

Lets not forget your other big guns, a .info site, and a small section in wikipedia. Here is an article that will catch you up on the conversations going on in physics, and its from a .org site by the way, NPR to be exact. Took me maybe a few seconds to find this, like I said it is common knowledge in physics. One Universe Too Many? String Theories, The Multiverse And The Future Of Physics. : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR
lets get you caught up.

Oh and apparently I was so shocked by your statement against my theory that god told animals when to evolve, that I felt the need to explain genetics to you like you were a child. Hmm, that doesn't really add up to me.

Oh, and now the study you called cuckoo before has been downgraded to simply boring. Did you finally do your research? I hope so.

Yeah. I couldn't find a link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Care to supply it?

Did you read the entire article? Im going to assume you understood it because its pretty dumbed down. If you did you would realize that once you get into physics that deep, there is no experimental evidence to support any of those theories out there.

So?

Matter of fact the only theory out there with experimental evidence in its favor seems to be fine tuning.

Not really. Besides, you didn't submit a peer reviewed scientific paper that demonstrates that the universe has been in any way "tuned."

The whole point is all science at this level is pretty much conceptual, you can crunch numbers to support your theory, but that will never upgrade it from being a theory. This is why we have so many different working theories in string theory, multi-verse theory, and quantum gravity.

You are asking the wrong question.

No I'm not--you're just not answering it. YOU'RE the one who is dismissing my reference to the WAP because I didn't meet your apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper.

So I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.

 

[sakinago]

I don't need a cannon to swat a fly.

Boring.

Yeah. I couldn't find a link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Care to supply it?

Did you read the entire article? Im going to assume you understood it because its pretty dumbed down. If you did you would realize that once you get into physics that deep, there is no experimental evidence to support any of those theories out there.

So?

Matter of fact the only theory out there with experimental evidence in its favor seems to be fine tuning.

Not really. Besides, you didn't submit a peer reviewed scientific paper that demonstrates that the universe has been in any way "tuned."

The whole point is all science at this level is pretty much conceptual, you can crunch numbers to support your theory, but that will never upgrade it from being a theory. This is why we have so many different working theories in string theory, multi-verse theory, and quantum gravity.

You are asking the wrong question.

No I'm not--you're just not answering it. YOU'RE the one who is dismissing my reference to the WAP because I didn't meet your apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper.

So I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.

No I am not ignoring the answer because there is no answer, that was my last point. If you asked a physicist the question why is the universe the way it is, they could not give you a specific answer. They might say "well I happen to like this theory, and this is why," but still could not give you a specific answer. If you asked more the one physicist the same question, you would probably get more than one of those answers.

If I were to turn in a research paper for a class using references from a .info site (whether or not it is biased) I would automatically get an F. Even if the paper was the best written paper that professor had ever read. The only legitiment online sources are those form .org or .edu. At least that is what I was taught for science classes not too long ago. The reason I choose NPR as a source is because they are a biased source, yet they still recognize the problem of fine tuning, just like any legitiment physicist out there.

So, let me ask a similar question to you. Please send me proof of multiverse, string, or both theories from a peer-reviewed source. Your not going to find one because it is not out there.

 

[LOki]

Did you read the entire article? Im going to assume you understood it because its pretty dumbed down. If you did you would realize that once you get into physics that deep, there is no experimental evidence to support any of those theories out there.

So?

Not really. Besides, you didn't submit a peer reviewed scientific paper that demonstrates that the universe has been in any way "tuned."

The whole point is all science at this level is pretty much conceptual, you can crunch numbers to support your theory, but that will never upgrade it from being a theory. This is why we have so many different working theories in string theory, multi-verse theory, and quantum gravity.

You are asking the wrong question.

No I'm not--you're just not answering it. YOU'RE the one who is dismissing my reference to the WAP because I didn't meet your apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper.

So I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.

No I am not ignoring the answer because there is no answer, that was my last point. If you asked a physicist the question why is the universe the way it is, they could not give you a specific answer. They might say "well I happen to like this theory, and this is why," but still could not give you a specific answer. If you asked more the one physicist the same question, you would probably get more than one of those answers.

If I were to turn in a research paper for a class using references from a .info site (whether or not it is biased) I would automatically get an F. Even if the paper was the best written paper that professor had ever read. The only legitiment online sources are those form .org or .edu. At least that is what I was taught for science classes not too long ago. The reason I choose NPR as a source is because they are a biased source, yet they still recognize the problem of fine tuning, just like any legitiment physicist out there.

So, let me ask a similar question to you. Please send me proof of multiverse, string, or both theories from a peer-reviewed source. Your not going to find one because it is not out there.

YOU'RE the one who is dismissing my reference to the WAP because I didn't meet your apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper.

So I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.