Evolution v. Creationism

[Cardinal Carminative]

That you can't understand why double and triple bonds are important for living things is beyond me. Strong bonds equals stable bonds. It's kind of a requirement for living things.

Why does it need to be particularly strong? Not all bonds in your body are double or triple. Most of them are single C-C and C-H bonds. If it were a matter of bond strength you'd get more mileage out of a Si-O bond. The enthalpy of that one is higher than C-C.

I will repeat again: most of the bonds in your body are SINGLE BONDS and...this is going to freak you out...your DNA makes EXTENSIVE USE OF hydrogen bonds! In fact it is kind of how DNA works. Hydrogen bonds are not the strongest bonds on the earth. In fact they are MANY TIMES SMALLER than even a C-C single bond.

So let's drop this cannard of "stable multiple bonds" as a definition of life. In fact it is arguable that most of life DOESN'T make use of those as much as they do the less strong bonds.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

What is it that you didn't understand from my statement that "rather than being a late outgrowth of the evolution of space and time mind has always existed as the source or matrix of physical reality?"

Yeah, New Age word salad.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

But what do you expect from a godless society? ...

So if China were not "godless" they wouldn't do stupid things to control their wildly giant population?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But what do you expect from a godless society?

Agreed.



Actually that is backwards logic. Everything we are and know developed to fit into the niches it currently inhabits. The puddle does not form to fit the shape of the water. The water conforms to the shape of the puddle.



Do you not work with Microsoft products?

Yes. Life is fine tuned to the universe, not the other way around. Life is defined by function, not by form or content. The same functions could and would be performed in different universes by life.

 

[ding]

Define "life" so we might actually discuss this.

You don't know how to define life?

Maybe you will be able to understand it after watching this. Please let me know if you have trouble understanding this.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You don't know how to define life?

I am trying to figure out how YOU define life so that we might come to a common frame in order to discuss this.

Maybe you will be able to understand it after watching this. Please let me know if you have trouble understanding this.

I don't watch other people's videos unless they're funny. Mainly because if you can't summarize it sufficiently then I don't care since it wasn't important to you.

Just tell me what your favorite video says. Thanks.

 

[ding]

Why does it need to be particularly strong? Not all bonds in your body are double or triple. Most of them are single C-C and C-H bonds. If it were a matter of bond strength you'd get more mileage out of a Si-O bond. The enthalpy of that one is higher than C-C.

I will repeat again: most of the bonds in your body are SINGLE BONDS and...this is going to freak you out...your DNA makes EXTENSIVE USE OF hydrogen bonds! In fact it is kind of how DNA works. Hydrogen bonds are not the strongest bonds on the earth. In fact they are MANY TIMES SMALLER than even a C-C single bond.

So let's drop this cannard of "stable multiple bonds" as a definition of life. In fact it is arguable that most of life DOESN'T make use of those as much as they do the less strong bonds.

You have to be kidding. I'm at a loss for words that you cannot understand why chemical stability is a requirement of life. Do you even O2? Apparently in your world life could be made up from any element. But that isn't what we see, right?

 

[ding]

I am trying to figure out how YOU define life so that we might come to a common frame in order to discuss this.



I don't watch other people's videos unless they're funny. Mainly because if you can't summarize it sufficiently then I don't care since it wasn't important to you.

Just tell me what your favorite video says. Thanks.

Well... if you won't watch the video then you'll never know.

Here's another video for you.

 

[ding]

Yeah, New Age word salad.

You are arguing with George Wald again.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

elijahwald.com

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You have to be kidding. I'm at a loss for words that you cannot understand why chemical stability is a requirement of life.

At what point did I say it wasn't? But again most of the chemical bonds in your body are NOT C=C or C=C bonds.

Apparently in your world life could be made up from any element. But that isn't what we see, right?

Your insistence on maximum stability as a definition of a prerequisite for life has now been shown to be flawed.

As I noted your DNA utilizes INTEGRALLY hydrogen bonds. It has a bond enthalpy about 10X smaller than a C-C bond.

(At this point I am beginning to understand what your game is.)

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Well... if you won't watch the video then you'll never know.

Here's another video for you.

If you don't understand it why do you need me to watch it? So someone can explain it to you?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You are arguing with George Wald again.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

elijahwald.com

It's new age word salad. It has no scientific meaning.

Sorry to break it to you. Even scientists say some batsh*t silly things from time to time. No matter how good they are at medicine.

 

[ding]

So let's drop this cannard of "stable multiple bonds" as a definition of life.

No one said that, dummy.

 

[ding]

If you don't understand it why do you need me to watch it? So someone can explain it to you?

I do understand it. You asked for how I define life and I provided a youtube video that answered the question.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think the ToE is a very shaky "jenga" game with some very weak blocks within the stack. Eventually someone will pull them out and the whole thing will come crashing down.

You expose your own intellectual fraud.

You say that someday, somehow,, somebody (else) will provide the reason or evidence for a belief you already adopted and insist is true.

See if you can spot the intellectual fraud...

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No one said that, dummy.

You don't even know what you are talking about.

You blabber on about "stability" of the bonds but you don't even know what a bond enthalpy is. (hint: it's a measure of the strength of the bond). You blabber on about making bonds that "mimic noble gases" but you don't even know what an Octet is (hint: that's what the phrase means).

You act like life is somehow predicated on MAXIMUM STABILITY of the bonds which has now been shown to include some really weak individual bonds.

You are so out of your depth it's not funny. And I KNOW you are enjoying driving me batty with your insipid ignorance, you know you don't understand most of what is being said, but you are doing what you do. It's getting to be less fun the more you do it. At one point I actually thought you might actually care about science. Now I know you don't know anything about any of it but you grab rando things and act like you are a real scientist just to hassle people who actually tried to read your stuff.)

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I do understand it. You asked for how I define life and I provided a youtube video that answered the question.

Got it. You don't understand it. You need someone to explain it to you. I don't do videos like some high school dropout.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No one said that, dummy.

Liar.

That you can't understand why double and triple bonds are important for living things is beyond me. Strong bonds equals stable bonds. It's kind of a requirement for living things.

 

[ding]

It's new age word salad. It has no scientific meaning.

Sorry to break it to you. Even scientists say some batsh*t silly things from time to time. No matter how good they are at medicine.

Incorrect. From a scientific view everything is made manifest by mind. George Wald said, "The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. It is primarily physicists who have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind." Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

So yes... it does have scientific meaning.

You have no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? Matter from mind is the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious.

.What we perceive as reality is a product of consciousness. The behavior of sub atomic particles - for that matter all particles and objects - is inextricably linked to the presence of a conscious observer. Without a conscious observer they exist in an undetermined state of probability waves. Without consciousness matter dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe preceding consciousness only existed in a probability state. The universe is explainable only through consciousness. The universe is finely tuned to support consciousness because consciousness created the universe, not the other way around.

The universe was created from nothing. Consciousness without form is no thing.

 

[ding]

Got it. You don't understand it. You need someone to explain it to you. I don't do videos like some high school dropout.

Then you will have to go through life being ignorant on what defines living things.