Not Darwin's Law, it's God's Law.

[the_human_being]

You want to see Tiktaalik rosae for your half-fish, half- land animal. Characteristics of both and right in the middle of the fossil record, right where the paleontologists predicted it would be.

Whatever. Just show it to us. Make an effort at least. No one else has been able to. Let's see something that supports something.

Let me google that for you

Go back and do some more research my Friend. At least you tried.

But now this footprint evidence from Poland consigns Tiktaalik and all its companion fossils onto the garbage heap. From being stars of the show they have suddenly become an evolutionary dead-end. So the creationists were right all along.
At first glance the evidence does not look very impressive. The tracks are preserved as shallow indentations on the surface of large limestone slabs from Zachelmie Quarry in the Holy Cross Mountains of Poland. The rough surfaces have an array of roundish indentations arranged in lines (figure 2). But, with the use of lines and diagrams (figure 3), the authors have argued a strong case that these indentations are indeed trackways of four legged animals that resembled large lizards. They were even able to show the shape of the foot within some of the individual prints and identify the toe marks (figure 4). From the dimensions of the prints they concluded that some animals were more than 2 metres long.
These trackways are a remarkable find but tracks are not particularly unusual in the fossil record. Thousands of trackways of land animals have been found in many different locations all over the world. What has captured world attention is that that these tracks are dated at 397 million years, which makes them fully 18 million years older than Tiktaalik. If four-legged animals existed 18 million years earlier, then Tiktaalik can’t be the transitional fossil it has been claimed to be. It’s suddenly been demoted to an evolutionary dead end along with all the other fossils connected with it. In other words, all those neat evolutionary diagrams that vividly displayed the transition from fish to four-footed animal ancestor (such as figure 1) need to be disposed of. The evolutionary house of cards, so proudly paraded before the world, collapses with a breeze of evidence from Poland.

From "creation.com". No surprise there. Another of the depositories for failed religious cranks.

If such as that was all the defense I might muster, I would simply say nothing at all.

 

[Hollie]

You want to see Tiktaalik rosae for your half-fish, half- land animal. Characteristics of both and right in the middle of the fossil record, right where the paleontologists predicted it would be.

Whatever. Just show it to us. Make an effort at least. No one else has been able to. Let's see something that supports something.

Let me google that for you

Go back and do some more research my Friend. At least you tried.

But now this footprint evidence from Poland consigns Tiktaalik and all its companion fossils onto the garbage heap. From being stars of the show they have suddenly become an evolutionary dead-end. So the creationists were right all along.
At first glance the evidence does not look very impressive. The tracks are preserved as shallow indentations on the surface of large limestone slabs from Zachelmie Quarry in the Holy Cross Mountains of Poland. The rough surfaces have an array of roundish indentations arranged in lines (figure 2). But, with the use of lines and diagrams (figure 3), the authors have argued a strong case that these indentations are indeed trackways of four legged animals that resembled large lizards. They were even able to show the shape of the foot within some of the individual prints and identify the toe marks (figure 4). From the dimensions of the prints they concluded that some animals were more than 2 metres long.
These trackways are a remarkable find but tracks are not particularly unusual in the fossil record. Thousands of trackways of land animals have been found in many different locations all over the world. What has captured world attention is that that these tracks are dated at 397 million years, which makes them fully 18 million years older than Tiktaalik. If four-legged animals existed 18 million years earlier, then Tiktaalik can’t be the transitional fossil it has been claimed to be. It’s suddenly been demoted to an evolutionary dead end along with all the other fossils connected with it. In other words, all those neat evolutionary diagrams that vividly displayed the transition from fish to four-footed animal ancestor (such as figure 1) need to be disposed of. The evolutionary house of cards, so proudly paraded before the world, collapses with a breeze of evidence from Poland.

From "creation.com". No surprise there. Another of the depositories for failed religious cranks.

If such as that was all the defense I might muster, I would simply say nothing at all.

You have basically done that. You have offered nothing at all.

 

[BreezeWood]

You want to see Tiktaalik rosae for your half-fish, half- land animal. Characteristics of both and right in the middle of the fossil record, right where the paleontologists predicted it would be.

Whatever. Just show it to us. Make an effort at least. No one else has been able to. Let's see something that supports something.

hb: Whatever. Just show it to us. Make an effort at least. No one else has been able to. Let's see something that supports something.

.

.

the examples are plentifull ...
.

.

what is your equation for Metamorphasis

.

 

[Steven_R]

You want to see Tiktaalik rosae for your half-fish, half- land animal. Characteristics of both and right in the middle of the fossil record, right where the paleontologists predicted it would be.

Whatever. Just show it to us. Make an effort at least. No one else has been able to. Let's see something that supports something.

Let me google that for you

Go back and do some more research my Friend. At least you tried.

But now this footprint evidence from Poland consigns Tiktaalik and all its companion fossils onto the garbage heap. From being stars of the show they have suddenly become an evolutionary dead-end. So the creationists were right all along.
At first glance the evidence does not look very impressive. The tracks are preserved as shallow indentations on the surface of large limestone slabs from Zachelmie Quarry in the Holy Cross Mountains of Poland. The rough surfaces have an array of roundish indentations arranged in lines (figure 2). But, with the use of lines and diagrams (figure 3), the authors have argued a strong case that these indentations are indeed trackways of four legged animals that resembled large lizards. They were even able to show the shape of the foot within some of the individual prints and identify the toe marks (figure 4). From the dimensions of the prints they concluded that some animals were more than 2 metres long.
These trackways are a remarkable find but tracks are not particularly unusual in the fossil record. Thousands of trackways of land animals have been found in many different locations all over the world. What has captured world attention is that that these tracks are dated at 397 million years, which makes them fully 18 million years older than Tiktaalik. If four-legged animals existed 18 million years earlier, then Tiktaalik can’t be the transitional fossil it has been claimed to be. It’s suddenly been demoted to an evolutionary dead end along with all the other fossils connected with it. In other words, all those neat evolutionary diagrams that vividly displayed the transition from fish to four-footed animal ancestor (such as figure 1) need to be disposed of. The evolutionary house of cards, so proudly paraded before the world, collapses with a breeze of evidence from Poland.

From "creation.com". No surprise there. Another of the depositories for failed religious cranks.

If such as that was all the defense I might muster, I would simply say nothing at all.

Well, I'm convinced. I mean, if a creationist website says Tiktaalik isn't really a transitional fossil, it must be true. I mean, why publish in Science, Nature, or PNAS when a biologist can submit a paper to Answers in Genesis?

 

[the_human_being]

Whatever. Just show it to us. Make an effort at least. No one else has been able to. Let's see something that supports something.

Let me google that for you

Go back and do some more research my Friend. At least you tried.

But now this footprint evidence from Poland consigns Tiktaalik and all its companion fossils onto the garbage heap. From being stars of the show they have suddenly become an evolutionary dead-end. So the creationists were right all along.
At first glance the evidence does not look very impressive. The tracks are preserved as shallow indentations on the surface of large limestone slabs from Zachelmie Quarry in the Holy Cross Mountains of Poland. The rough surfaces have an array of roundish indentations arranged in lines (figure 2). But, with the use of lines and diagrams (figure 3), the authors have argued a strong case that these indentations are indeed trackways of four legged animals that resembled large lizards. They were even able to show the shape of the foot within some of the individual prints and identify the toe marks (figure 4). From the dimensions of the prints they concluded that some animals were more than 2 metres long.
These trackways are a remarkable find but tracks are not particularly unusual in the fossil record. Thousands of trackways of land animals have been found in many different locations all over the world. What has captured world attention is that that these tracks are dated at 397 million years, which makes them fully 18 million years older than Tiktaalik. If four-legged animals existed 18 million years earlier, then Tiktaalik can’t be the transitional fossil it has been claimed to be. It’s suddenly been demoted to an evolutionary dead end along with all the other fossils connected with it. In other words, all those neat evolutionary diagrams that vividly displayed the transition from fish to four-footed animal ancestor (such as figure 1) need to be disposed of. The evolutionary house of cards, so proudly paraded before the world, collapses with a breeze of evidence from Poland.

From "creation.com". No surprise there. Another of the depositories for failed religious cranks.

If such as that was all the defense I might muster, I would simply say nothing at all.

Well, I'm convinced. I mean, if a creationist website says Tiktaalik isn't really a transitional fossil, it must be true. I mean, why publish in Science, Nature, or PNAS when a biologist can submit a paper to Answers in Genesis?

Because it was supposed to serve an agenda. A false agenda. Can't you folks put something up that is at least within the last 100 years? If your evolution is happening constantly, there should be biological transitional specimens lying all over your back yards. You shouldn't be forced to dig up bones from 100 million years ago, should you? Just the other night a covey of half-bird-half-man things were perched on a power line just down the road from my house. One of the things flew into my windshield and made a heck of a mess.

Seriously though, I led you into that one. I already knew what you were talking about and that it had already been reduced to just another extinct species. Perhaps though, it might serve you to research your arguments a mite better in the future. Like I say though, at least you tried.

 

[Hollie]

Let me google that for you

Go back and do some more research my Friend. At least you tried.

But now this footprint evidence from Poland consigns Tiktaalik and all its companion fossils onto the garbage heap. From being stars of the show they have suddenly become an evolutionary dead-end. So the creationists were right all along.
At first glance the evidence does not look very impressive. The tracks are preserved as shallow indentations on the surface of large limestone slabs from Zachelmie Quarry in the Holy Cross Mountains of Poland. The rough surfaces have an array of roundish indentations arranged in lines (figure 2). But, with the use of lines and diagrams (figure 3), the authors have argued a strong case that these indentations are indeed trackways of four legged animals that resembled large lizards. They were even able to show the shape of the foot within some of the individual prints and identify the toe marks (figure 4). From the dimensions of the prints they concluded that some animals were more than 2 metres long.
These trackways are a remarkable find but tracks are not particularly unusual in the fossil record. Thousands of trackways of land animals have been found in many different locations all over the world. What has captured world attention is that that these tracks are dated at 397 million years, which makes them fully 18 million years older than Tiktaalik. If four-legged animals existed 18 million years earlier, then Tiktaalik can’t be the transitional fossil it has been claimed to be. It’s suddenly been demoted to an evolutionary dead end along with all the other fossils connected with it. In other words, all those neat evolutionary diagrams that vividly displayed the transition from fish to four-footed animal ancestor (such as figure 1) need to be disposed of. The evolutionary house of cards, so proudly paraded before the world, collapses with a breeze of evidence from Poland.

From "creation.com". No surprise there. Another of the depositories for failed religious cranks.

If such as that was all the defense I might muster, I would simply say nothing at all.

Well, I'm convinced. I mean, if a creationist website says Tiktaalik isn't really a transitional fossil, it must be true. I mean, why publish in Science, Nature, or PNAS when a biologist can submit a paper to Answers in Genesis?

Because it was supposed to serve an agenda. A false agenda. Can't you folks put something up that is at least within the last 100 years? If your evolution is happening constantly, there should be biological transitional specimens lying all over your back yards. You shouldn't be forced to dig up bones from 100 million years ago, should you? Just the other night a covey of half-bird-half-man things were perched on a power line just down the road from my house. One of the things flew into my windshield and made a heck of a mess.

Seriously though, I led you into that one. I already knew what you were talking about and that it had already been reduced to just another extinct species. Perhaps though, it might serve you to research your arguments a mite better in the future. Like I say though, at least you tried.

What your creation ministries lack in science can't be made up for with conspiracy theories.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

One involves the origin of species. The other involves the origin of higher orders of life (genera and above). Both operate under the exact same principles. Both have significant evidence to support them. And Rawlings, I seriously doubt about your claim to being highly educated. If it is true that you've spent a lot of time and money educating yourself, damn. Ask for a refund.

And what is this crap out of the blue?

The imperatives of the bioneurologically hardwired rational forms and logical categories of human cognition regarding the objective facts of existence and origin stand! They are incontrovertible, rational and scientific facts of human psychology.

You have never refuted me on any point in that regard!

First you confound the distinction between prescientific hermeneutical models and scripture itself . . . as you foolishly imply that I'm ignorant of Ussher's genealogically based age for the Earth, an approach premised on assumptions that have been falsified for decades by archeological science and falsified prior to that by geological science. The Bible does not tell us how old mankind, the Earth or the Universe is. Period! Ussher was wrong. That some Christians still cling to the fundamentalism of a young Earth premised on Ussher's scientifically uninformed hermeneutics is of no significance. Further, the Bible does not place Earth at the physical center of the universe; it places it at the spiritual and soteriological center of the universe.

You have never refuted me on any point in that regard!

Then you claim that natural selection is wholly nonrandom. That is patently false! Genetic mutation and genetic drift are random in a sea of unpredictable environmental factors.

Refute me on that.

Also, Your ignorance of prebiotic science has been well-documented and illustrated by me on this forum over and over again. You have yet to answer these questions:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10210743/
The 25 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus: Or How the Proponents of Make Believe Aboigenesis Don't Really Have the First Clue about the Science. . . .​

 

[the_human_being]

Go back and do some more research my Friend. At least you tried.

But now this footprint evidence from Poland consigns Tiktaalik and all its companion fossils onto the garbage heap. From being stars of the show they have suddenly become an evolutionary dead-end. So the creationists were right all along.
At first glance the evidence does not look very impressive. The tracks are preserved as shallow indentations on the surface of large limestone slabs from Zachelmie Quarry in the Holy Cross Mountains of Poland. The rough surfaces have an array of roundish indentations arranged in lines (figure 2). But, with the use of lines and diagrams (figure 3), the authors have argued a strong case that these indentations are indeed trackways of four legged animals that resembled large lizards. They were even able to show the shape of the foot within some of the individual prints and identify the toe marks (figure 4). From the dimensions of the prints they concluded that some animals were more than 2 metres long.
These trackways are a remarkable find but tracks are not particularly unusual in the fossil record. Thousands of trackways of land animals have been found in many different locations all over the world. What has captured world attention is that that these tracks are dated at 397 million years, which makes them fully 18 million years older than Tiktaalik. If four-legged animals existed 18 million years earlier, then Tiktaalik can’t be the transitional fossil it has been claimed to be. It’s suddenly been demoted to an evolutionary dead end along with all the other fossils connected with it. In other words, all those neat evolutionary diagrams that vividly displayed the transition from fish to four-footed animal ancestor (such as figure 1) need to be disposed of. The evolutionary house of cards, so proudly paraded before the world, collapses with a breeze of evidence from Poland.

From "creation.com". No surprise there. Another of the depositories for failed religious cranks.

If such as that was all the defense I might muster, I would simply say nothing at all.

Well, I'm convinced. I mean, if a creationist website says Tiktaalik isn't really a transitional fossil, it must be true. I mean, why publish in Science, Nature, or PNAS when a biologist can submit a paper to Answers in Genesis?

Because it was supposed to serve an agenda. A false agenda. Can't you folks put something up that is at least within the last 100 years? If your evolution is happening constantly, there should be biological transitional specimens lying all over your back yards. You shouldn't be forced to dig up bones from 100 million years ago, should you? Just the other night a covey of half-bird-half-man things were perched on a power line just down the road from my house. One of the things flew into my windshield and made a heck of a mess.

Seriously though, I led you into that one. I already knew what you were talking about and that it had already been reduced to just another extinct species. Perhaps though, it might serve you to research your arguments a mite better in the future. Like I say though, at least you tried.

What your creation ministries lack in science can't be made up for with conspiracy theories.

Yes indeed. Wasn't it evolutionists who murdered James Hoffa?

Here's yet another one for you believers in myths and fairy tales. Why Evolution is False

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Case in point. . . .


Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis (http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10227044/)


I was talking about the number of different kinds of biological precursors that occur in nature outside living cells earlier, which are in fact a relatively paltry number relative to the total number required for life. Fact! No one but an ignoramus would have failed to understand what I was talking about especially given the obvious authority of my painstakingly researched and annotated article: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

For example, 17 of the 20 amino acids of life have been synthesized under laboratory conditions, but only a small handful of these actually occur in nature or might have been synthesized in plausibly viable concentrations in nature in terms of the processes of abiogenesis. Four of the five primary nucleobases naturally occur in nature (adenine, guanine, thymine and uracil), albeit, as synthesized in space. The latter can also be synthesized under pristine laboratory conditions or even under the controlled simulations of semi-natural conditions. Cytosine can be synthesized under laboratory conditions too. But we don't have the slightest clue, really, what any of this means relative to the terrestrial-bound, prebiotic chemistry of the primordial world for any of these monomers. Left on their own outside living cells or as calcified, meteoric deposits, they deanimate or react with nonbiotic organic compounds—away from the formulations of life, not toward them.

Cytosine would not have been available to the processes of prebiotic chemistry in nature, certainly not in any viable concentrations as its synthesis in nature is astronomically implausible. Also, cytosine spontaneously deaminates beyond the protective membranes of cells. Adenine is also highly unstable outside living cells. It can only maintain its composition in space or, under the atmospheric conditions of Earth, in calcified, meteoric deposits, or in weak, nonspecific bonds with uracil or thymine. Guanine, the most stable, is definitely synthesized in space, while thymine and its alternate counterpart uracil are also relatively stable and might have naturally formed on Earth, albeit, under reducing or semi-reducing atmospheric conditions and in some fashion shielded from destructive UV light long enough for them to have gotten into the oceans. That's a big maybe. Also, hypoxanthine, a purine derivative, and xanthine, a purine base, naturally occur outside living cells, apparently, as synthesized in space. All of these naturally occurring biological molecules are infrastructural monomers in racemic mixtures, which are useless to life, and tend toward nonbiotic, cross-contaminant reactions outside living cells. They are not the homochiral mixtures of life, let alone the informational, complex-structure-forming polymers of life. Life can't exist without the latter, yet nature can't get beyond the paltry collection of the former in order to get to the latter on its own . . . for staggeringly complex reasons you know nothing about.

This is true even if all of the other indispensable monomers that are necessary for the formation of the polymers could have maintained their compositions via strictly natural means, even if they were all put together in a homchiral stew with all the cross-contaminant chemicals of nature removed . . . just like we've tried over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in the laboratory. Nothing! Nature will not take the monomers and form the polymers of life, let alone the informational structures of life above the level of polymerization. Goop. Even in a pristine mixture with all the essential ingredients in a pristine, cell-like environment, not arranged by nature at all, but by intelligence, we get . . . goop. And, of course, all of the other monomers have to be harvested from living cells, because they don't occur or can't hold their compositions in nature outside living cells. Even when we cheat for nature, give it an artificial helping hand, it can't do it.

Nope! Your magic doesn't work. Only when we step in and artificially front load the process, design replicating platforms above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of chemistry based on the preexistent blueprint of biology do we get a primitive, self-replicating RNA system . . . and, of course, that's not life either.

Intelligence. That's what we're proving today.

These are the things I was thinking about and alluding to, and, then, suddenly, out of nowhere, you're talking about a million or so organic molecules in a comet as if you were sharing something amazing, unusual, surprising, unexpected, as if—Eureka!—abiogenesis is true, as if this mundane fact had anything to do with what I was thinking about or alluding to. In that you implied something that is not true . . . about the prospects for abiogenesis and about the quality of my article, which was vetted, by the way, in the editorial process by a microbiologist and an abiogeneticist. They don't agree with my conclusion, of course. They're true believers. They hold that in spite of the obvious problems that it all came together somehow, but, then, they're metaphysical materialists, ontological naturalists. We're here, so it must have happened without intelligence. But they did not fault the presentation of the facts or the presentation of the research, though they did tighten up a few things and recommended a few key revisions with additional information and clarifications that improved me and the piece.

I'm an amateur biologist, with a solid formal background, though mostly self-taught thereafter, but that article is solid.

I called you on your phony claptrap for the know-nothing grab ass that you are.

What did you say? Read your citation and weep? You mean that article on something I was already aware of as one who stays current on the pertinent science, the true significance of which I explained to you?

You don't have the first clue. Of course life was composed from the prebiotic, organic precursors, their polymerizations and other organic compounds in the universe.

Therefore, abiogenesis?

This stuff does not come together via any purely natural processes above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of mere chemistry to form life. God took the raw materials, organized them above the infrastructural level and formed life. God engineered life directly, not mere nature.

Intelligence. That's what we're proving today.

You go find your mommy. Ask her to read my article to you and weep. I don't expect you to agree with the theological bias of the article or with the conclusions, but don't tell me that the scientific facts of the matter and the research thereof are not objectively and accurately presented in the article.

Check?

 

[Hollie]

From "creation.com". No surprise there. Another of the depositories for failed religious cranks.

If such as that was all the defense I might muster, I would simply say nothing at all.

Well, I'm convinced. I mean, if a creationist website says Tiktaalik isn't really a transitional fossil, it must be true. I mean, why publish in Science, Nature, or PNAS when a biologist can submit a paper to Answers in Genesis?

Because it was supposed to serve an agenda. A false agenda. Can't you folks put something up that is at least within the last 100 years? If your evolution is happening constantly, there should be biological transitional specimens lying all over your back yards. You shouldn't be forced to dig up bones from 100 million years ago, should you? Just the other night a covey of half-bird-half-man things were perched on a power line just down the road from my house. One of the things flew into my windshield and made a heck of a mess.

Seriously though, I led you into that one. I already knew what you were talking about and that it had already been reduced to just another extinct species. Perhaps though, it might serve you to research your arguments a mite better in the future. Like I say though, at least you tried.

What your creation ministries lack in science can't be made up for with conspiracy theories.

Yes indeed. Wasn't it evolutionists who murdered James Hoffa?

Here's yet another one for you believers in myths and fairy tales. Why Evolution is False

Hokey schmokes.

It's been a while since anyone has used the laughable Do-while Jones website.

What a hoot.

 

[Hollie]

Case in point. . . .


Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis (http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10227044/)


I was talking about the number of different kinds of biological precursors that occur in nature outside living cells earlier, which are in fact a relatively paltry number relative to the total number required for life. Fact! No one but an ignoramus would have failed to understand what I was talking about especially given the obvious authority of my painstakingly researched and annotated article: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

For example, 17 of the 20 amino acids of life have been synthesized under laboratory conditions, but only a small handful of these actually occur in nature or might have been synthesized in plausibly viable concentrations in nature in terms of the processes of abiogenesis. Four of the five primary nucleobases naturally occur in nature (adenine, guanine, thymine and uracil), albeit, as synthesized in space. The latter can also be synthesized under pristine laboratory conditions or even under the controlled simulations of semi-natural conditions. Cytosine can be synthesized under laboratory conditions too. But we don't have the slightest clue, really, what any of this means relative to the terrestrial-bound, prebiotic chemistry of the primordial world for any of these monomers. Left on their own outside living cells or as calcified, meteoric deposits, they deanimate or react with nonbiotic organic compounds—away from the formulations of life, not toward them.

Cytosine would not have been available to the processes of prebiotic chemistry in nature, certainly not in any viable concentrations as its synthesis in nature is astronomically implausible. Also, cytosine spontaneously deaminates beyond the protective membranes of cells. Adenine is also highly unstable outside living cells. It can only maintain its composition in space or, under the atmospheric conditions of Earth, in calcified, meteoric deposits, or in weak, nonspecific bonds with uracil or thymine. Guanine, the most stable, is definitely synthesized in space, while thymine and its alternate counterpart uracil are also relatively stable and might have naturally formed on Earth, albeit, under reducing or semi-reducing atmospheric conditions and in some fashion shielded from destructive UV light long enough for them to have gotten into the oceans. That's a big maybe. Also, hypoxanthine, a purine derivative, and xanthine, a purine base, naturally occur outside living cells, apparently, as synthesized in space. All of these naturally occurring biological molecules are infrastructural monomers in racemic mixtures, which are useless to life, and tend toward nonbiotic, cross-contaminant reactions outside living cells. They are not the homochiral mixtures of life, let alone the informational, complex-structure-forming polymers of life. Life can't exist without the latter, yet nature can't get beyond the paltry collection of the former in order to get to the latter on its own . . . for staggeringly complex reasons you know nothing about.

This is true even if all of the other indispensable monomers that are necessary for the formation of the polymers could have maintained their compositions via strictly natural means, even if they were all put together in a homchiral stew with all the cross-contaminant chemicals of nature removed . . . just like we've tried over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in the laboratory. Nothing! Nature will not take the monomers and form the polymers of life, let alone the informational structures of life above the level of polymerization. Goop. Even in a pristine mixture with all the essential ingredients in a pristine, cell-like environment, not arranged by nature at all, but by intelligence, we get . . . goop. And, of course, all of the other monomers have to be harvested from living cells, because they don't occur or can't hold their compositions in nature outside living cells. Even when we cheat for nature, give it an artificial helping hand, it can't do it.

Nope! Your magic doesn't work. Only when we step in and artificially front load the process, design replicating platforms above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of chemistry based on the preexistent blueprint of biology do we get a primitive, self-replicating RNA system . . . and, of course, that's not life either.

Intelligence. That's what we're proving today.

These are the things I was thinking about and alluding to, and, then, suddenly, out of nowhere, you're talking about a million or so organic molecules in a comet as if you were sharing something amazing, unusual, surprising, unexpected, as if—Eureka!—abiogenesis is true, as if this mundane fact had anything to do with what I was thinking about or alluding to. In that you implied something that is not true . . . about the prospects for abiogenesis and about the quality of my article, which was vetted, by the way, in the editorial process by a microbiologist and an abiogeneticist. They don't agree with my conclusion, of course. They're true believers. They hold that in spite of the obvious problems that it all came together somehow, but, then, they're metaphysical materialists, ontological naturalists. We're here, so it must have happened without intelligence. But they did not fault the presentation of the facts or the presentation of the research, though they did tighten up a few things and recommended a few key revisions with additional information and clarifications that improved me and the piece.

I'm an amateur biologist, with a solid formal background, though mostly self-taught thereafter, but that article is solid.

I called you on your phony claptrap for the know-nothing grab ass that you are.

What did you say? Read your citation and weep? You mean that article on something I was already aware of as one who stays current on the pertinent science, the true significance of which I explained to you?

You don't have the first clue. Of course life was composed from the prebiotic, organic precursors, their polymerizations and other organic compounds in the universe.

Therefore, abiogenesis?

This stuff does not come together via any purely natural processes above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of mere chemistry to form life. God took the raw materials, organized them above the infrastructural level and formed life. God engineered life directly, not mere nature.

Intelligence. That's what we're proving today.

Go find your mommy, ask her to read my article to you, and weep. I don't expect you to agree with the theological bias of the article or with the conclusions, but don't tell me that the scientific facts of the matter and the research thereof are not objectively and accurately presented in the article.

Check?

Pointless cut and paste.


Check?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

.

.

the examples are plentifull ...
.

.

what is your equation for Metamorphasis

.

Metamorphosis is not an instance of evolutionary speciation, you buffoon.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Well, I'm convinced. I mean, if a creationist website says Tiktaalik isn't really a transitional fossil, it must be true. I mean, why publish in Science, Nature, or PNAS when a biologist can submit a paper to Answers in Genesis?

Well, now, looky here. I'm convinced that the empirically indemonstrable and utterly gratuitous hypothesis of a common ancestry premised on the scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of Darwinian naturalism or ontological naturalism must be true . . . because some say so, never mind the imperatives of logic and mathematics. Biological history couldn't possibly be a series of creative events and extinctions over time, never mind that there is plenty of evidence supporting that conclusion. Science and the metaphysics of Darwinian/ontological naturalism are synonymous; therefore, evolution is true!

Oops. Wait a minute. The assumption of a common ancestry doesn't necessarily follow from the evidence, does it?

 

[Steven_R]

In your list of -isms, you neglected to mention the genetic, molecular biochemical, and geologic evidence backing evolution. I'm quite sure the philosophy of science trumps the libraries of evidence, yet I'm not sure why papers that would so easily overturn evolution just aren't being published. Surely there are some creationist multi-millionare types willing to write grant checks to people that would disprove two centuries of data and we all know the first scientist to overturn evolution is at least getting a Nobel prize out of the deal, so where's the papers?

 

[the_human_being]

Case in point. . . .


Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis (http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10227044/)


I was talking about the number of different kinds of biological precursors that occur in nature outside living cells earlier, which are in fact a relatively paltry number relative to the total number required for life. Fact! No one but an ignoramus would have failed to understand what I was talking about especially given the obvious authority of my painstakingly researched and annotated article: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

For example, 17 of the 20 amino acids of life have been synthesized under laboratory conditions, but only a small handful of these actually occur in nature or might have been synthesized in plausibly viable concentrations in nature in terms of the processes of abiogenesis. Four of the five primary nucleobases naturally occur in nature (adenine, guanine, thymine and uracil), albeit, as synthesized in space. The latter can also be synthesized under pristine laboratory conditions or even under the controlled simulations of semi-natural conditions. Cytosine can be synthesized under laboratory conditions too. But we don't have the slightest clue, really, what any of this means relative to the terrestrial-bound, prebiotic chemistry of the primordial world for any of these monomers. Left on their own outside living cells or as calcified, meteoric deposits, they deanimate or react with nonbiotic organic compounds—away from the formulations of life, not toward them.

Cytosine would not have been available to the processes of prebiotic chemistry in nature, certainly not in any viable concentrations as its synthesis in nature is astronomically implausible. Also, cytosine spontaneously deaminates beyond the protective membranes of cells. Adenine is also highly unstable outside living cells. It can only maintain its composition in space or, under the atmospheric conditions of Earth, in calcified, meteoric deposits, or in weak, nonspecific bonds with uracil or thymine. Guanine, the most stable, is definitely synthesized in space, while thymine and its alternate counterpart uracil are also relatively stable and might have naturally formed on Earth, albeit, under reducing or semi-reducing atmospheric conditions and in some fashion shielded from destructive UV light long enough for them to have gotten into the oceans. That's a big maybe. Also, hypoxanthine, a purine derivative, and xanthine, a purine base, naturally occur outside living cells, apparently, as synthesized in space. All of these naturally occurring biological molecules are infrastructural monomers in racemic mixtures, which are useless to life, and tend toward nonbiotic, cross-contaminant reactions outside living cells. They are not the homochiral mixtures of life, let alone the informational, complex-structure-forming polymers of life. Life can't exist without the latter, yet nature can't get beyond the paltry collection of the former in order to get to the latter on its own . . . for staggeringly complex reasons you know nothing about.

This is true even if all of the other indispensable monomers that are necessary for the formation of the polymers could have maintained their compositions via strictly natural means, even if they were all put together in a homchiral stew with all the cross-contaminant chemicals of nature removed . . . just like we've tried over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in the laboratory. Nothing! Nature will not take the monomers and form the polymers of life, let alone the informational structures of life above the level of polymerization. Goop. Even in a pristine mixture with all the essential ingredients in a pristine, cell-like environment, not arranged by nature at all, but by intelligence, we get . . . goop. And, of course, all of the other monomers have to be harvested from living cells, because they don't occur or can't hold their compositions in nature outside living cells. Even when we cheat for nature, give it an artificial helping hand, it can't do it.

Nope! Your magic doesn't work. Only when we step in and artificially front load the process, design replicating platforms above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of chemistry based on the preexistent blueprint of biology do we get a primitive, self-replicating RNA system . . . and, of course, that's not life either.

Intelligence. That's what we're proving today.

These are the things I was thinking about and alluding to, and, then, suddenly, out of nowhere, you're talking about a million or so organic molecules in a comet as if you were sharing something amazing, unusual, surprising, unexpected, as if—Eureka!—abiogenesis is true, as if this mundane fact had anything to do with what I was thinking about or alluding to. In that you implied something that is not true . . . about the prospects for abiogenesis and about the quality of my article, which was vetted, by the way, in the editorial process by a microbiologist and an abiogeneticist. They don't agree with my conclusion, of course. They're true believers. They hold that in spite of the obvious problems that it all came together somehow, but, then, they're metaphysical materialists, ontological naturalists. We're here, so it must have happened without intelligence. But they did not fault the presentation of the facts or the presentation of the research, though they did tighten up a few things and recommended a few key revisions with additional information and clarifications that improved me and the piece.

I'm an amateur biologist, with a solid formal background, though mostly self-taught thereafter, but that article is solid.

I called you on your phony claptrap for the know-nothing grab ass that you are.

What did you say? Read your citation and weep? You mean that article on something I was already aware of as one who stays current on the pertinent science, the true significance of which I explained to you?

You don't have the first clue. Of course life was composed from the prebiotic, organic precursors, their polymerizations and other organic compounds in the universe.

Therefore, abiogenesis?

This stuff does not come together via any purely natural processes above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of mere chemistry to form life. God took the raw materials, organized them above the infrastructural level and formed life. God engineered life directly, not mere nature.

Intelligence. That's what we're proving today.

You go find your mommy. Ask her to read my article to you and weep. I don't expect you to agree with the theological bias of the article or with the conclusions, but don't tell me that the scientific facts of the matter and the research thereof are not objectively and accurately presented in the article.

Check?

Excellent article. To the point.

 

[the_human_being]

In your list of -isms, you neglected to mention the genetic, molecular biochemical, and geologic evidence backing evolution. I'm quite sure the philosophy of science trumps the libraries of evidence, yet I'm not sure why papers that would so easily overturn evolution just aren't being published. Surely there are some creationist multi-millionare types willing to write grant checks to people that would disprove two centuries of data and we all know the first scientist to overturn evolution is at least getting a Nobel prize out of the deal, so where's the papers?

Oh of course it's all a conspiracy. When nothing else works throw something utterly stupid on the wall and see if it sticks.

 

[the_human_being]

If such as that was all the defense I might muster, I would simply say nothing at all.

Well, I'm convinced. I mean, if a creationist website says Tiktaalik isn't really a transitional fossil, it must be true. I mean, why publish in Science, Nature, or PNAS when a biologist can submit a paper to Answers in Genesis?

Because it was supposed to serve an agenda. A false agenda. Can't you folks put something up that is at least within the last 100 years? If your evolution is happening constantly, there should be biological transitional specimens lying all over your back yards. You shouldn't be forced to dig up bones from 100 million years ago, should you? Just the other night a covey of half-bird-half-man things were perched on a power line just down the road from my house. One of the things flew into my windshield and made a heck of a mess.

Seriously though, I led you into that one. I already knew what you were talking about and that it had already been reduced to just another extinct species. Perhaps though, it might serve you to research your arguments a mite better in the future. Like I say though, at least you tried.

What your creation ministries lack in science can't be made up for with conspiracy theories.

Yes indeed. Wasn't it evolutionists who murdered James Hoffa?

Here's yet another one for you believers in myths and fairy tales. Why Evolution is False

Hokey schmokes.

It's been a while since anyone has used the laughable Do-while Jones website.

What a hoot.

Hollie, you're really getting to bore us.

 

[the_human_being]

.

.

the examples are plentifull ...
.

.

what is your equation for Metamorphasis

.

Metamorphosis is not an instance of evolutionary speciation, you buffoon.

Indeed. This one didn't even merit a response. He's almost as pathetic as is Hollie.

 

[Hollie]

Well, I'm convinced. I mean, if a creationist website says Tiktaalik isn't really a transitional fossil, it must be true. I mean, why publish in Science, Nature, or PNAS when a biologist can submit a paper to Answers in Genesis?

Well, now, looky here. I'm convinced that the empirically indemonstrable and utterly gratuitous hypothesis of a common ancestry premised on the scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of Darwinian naturalism or ontological naturalism must be true . . . because some say so, never mind the imperatives of logic and mathematics. Biological history couldn't possibly be a series of creative events and extinctions over time, never mind that there is plenty of evidence supporting that conclusion. Science and the metaphysics of Darwinian/ontological naturalism are synonymous; therefore, evolution is true!

Oops. Wait a minute. The assumption of a common ancestry doesn't necessarily follow from the evidence, does it?

Well, I'm convinced. I mean, if a creationist website says Tiktaalik isn't really a transitional fossil, it must be true. I mean, why publish in Science, Nature, or PNAS when a biologist can submit a paper to Answers in Genesis?

Because it was supposed to serve an agenda. A false agenda. Can't you folks put something up that is at least within the last 100 years? If your evolution is happening constantly, there should be biological transitional specimens lying all over your back yards. You shouldn't be forced to dig up bones from 100 million years ago, should you? Just the other night a covey of half-bird-half-man things were perched on a power line just down the road from my house. One of the things flew into my windshield and made a heck of a mess.

Seriously though, I led you into that one. I already knew what you were talking about and that it had already been reduced to just another extinct species. Perhaps though, it might serve you to research your arguments a mite better in the future. Like I say though, at least you tried.

What your creation ministries lack in science can't be made up for with conspiracy theories.

Yes indeed. Wasn't it evolutionists who murdered James Hoffa?

Here's yet another one for you believers in myths and fairy tales. Why Evolution is False

Hokey schmokes.

It's been a while since anyone has used the laughable Do-while Jones website.

What a hoot.

Hollie, you're really getting to bore us.

Did you really expect not to be the subject of ridicule for your laughable Do-while Jones nonsense?

 

[Hollie]

.

.

the examples are plentifull ...
.

.

what is your equation for Metamorphasis

.

Metamorphosis is not an instance of evolutionary speciation, you buffoon.

Indeed. This one didn't even merit a response. He's almost as pathetic as is Hollie.

Case in point. . . .


Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis (http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10227044/)


I was talking about the number of different kinds of biological precursors that occur in nature outside living cells earlier, which are in fact a relatively paltry number relative to the total number required for life. Fact! No one but an ignoramus would have failed to understand what I was talking about especially given the obvious authority of my painstakingly researched and annotated article: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

For example, 17 of the 20 amino acids of life have been synthesized under laboratory conditions, but only a small handful of these actually occur in nature or might have been synthesized in plausibly viable concentrations in nature in terms of the processes of abiogenesis. Four of the five primary nucleobases naturally occur in nature (adenine, guanine, thymine and uracil), albeit, as synthesized in space. The latter can also be synthesized under pristine laboratory conditions or even under the controlled simulations of semi-natural conditions. Cytosine can be synthesized under laboratory conditions too. But we don't have the slightest clue, really, what any of this means relative to the terrestrial-bound, prebiotic chemistry of the primordial world for any of these monomers. Left on their own outside living cells or as calcified, meteoric deposits, they deanimate or react with nonbiotic organic compounds—away from the formulations of life, not toward them.

Cytosine would not have been available to the processes of prebiotic chemistry in nature, certainly not in any viable concentrations as its synthesis in nature is astronomically implausible. Also, cytosine spontaneously deaminates beyond the protective membranes of cells. Adenine is also highly unstable outside living cells. It can only maintain its composition in space or, under the atmospheric conditions of Earth, in calcified, meteoric deposits, or in weak, nonspecific bonds with uracil or thymine. Guanine, the most stable, is definitely synthesized in space, while thymine and its alternate counterpart uracil are also relatively stable and might have naturally formed on Earth, albeit, under reducing or semi-reducing atmospheric conditions and in some fashion shielded from destructive UV light long enough for them to have gotten into the oceans. That's a big maybe. Also, hypoxanthine, a purine derivative, and xanthine, a purine base, naturally occur outside living cells, apparently, as synthesized in space. All of these naturally occurring biological molecules are infrastructural monomers in racemic mixtures, which are useless to life, and tend toward nonbiotic, cross-contaminant reactions outside living cells. They are not the homochiral mixtures of life, let alone the informational, complex-structure-forming polymers of life. Life can't exist without the latter, yet nature can't get beyond the paltry collection of the former in order to get to the latter on its own . . . for staggeringly complex reasons you know nothing about.

This is true even if all of the other indispensable monomers that are necessary for the formation of the polymers could have maintained their compositions via strictly natural means, even if they were all put together in a homchiral stew with all the cross-contaminant chemicals of nature removed . . . just like we've tried over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in the laboratory. Nothing! Nature will not take the monomers and form the polymers of life, let alone the informational structures of life above the level of polymerization. Goop. Even in a pristine mixture with all the essential ingredients in a pristine, cell-like environment, not arranged by nature at all, but by intelligence, we get . . . goop. And, of course, all of the other monomers have to be harvested from living cells, because they don't occur or can't hold their compositions in nature outside living cells. Even when we cheat for nature, give it an artificial helping hand, it can't do it.

Nope! Your magic doesn't work. Only when we step in and artificially front load the process, design replicating platforms above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of chemistry based on the preexistent blueprint of biology do we get a primitive, self-replicating RNA system . . . and, of course, that's not life either.

Intelligence. That's what we're proving today.

These are the things I was thinking about and alluding to, and, then, suddenly, out of nowhere, you're talking about a million or so organic molecules in a comet as if you were sharing something amazing, unusual, surprising, unexpected, as if—Eureka!—abiogenesis is true, as if this mundane fact had anything to do with what I was thinking about or alluding to. In that you implied something that is not true . . . about the prospects for abiogenesis and about the quality of my article, which was vetted, by the way, in the editorial process by a microbiologist and an abiogeneticist. They don't agree with my conclusion, of course. They're true believers. They hold that in spite of the obvious problems that it all came together somehow, but, then, they're metaphysical materialists, ontological naturalists. We're here, so it must have happened without intelligence. But they did not fault the presentation of the facts or the presentation of the research, though they did tighten up a few things and recommended a few key revisions with additional information and clarifications that improved me and the piece.

I'm an amateur biologist, with a solid formal background, though mostly self-taught thereafter, but that article is solid.

I called you on your phony claptrap for the know-nothing grab ass that you are.

What did you say? Read your citation and weep? You mean that article on something I was already aware of as one who stays current on the pertinent science, the true significance of which I explained to you?

You don't have the first clue. Of course life was composed from the prebiotic, organic precursors, their polymerizations and other organic compounds in the universe.

Therefore, abiogenesis?

This stuff does not come together via any purely natural processes above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of mere chemistry to form life. God took the raw materials, organized them above the infrastructural level and formed life. God engineered life directly, not mere nature.

Intelligence. That's what we're proving today.

You go find your mommy. Ask her to read my article to you and weep. I don't expect you to agree with the theological bias of the article or with the conclusions, but don't tell me that the scientific facts of the matter and the research thereof are not objectively and accurately presented in the article.

Check?

Excellent article. To the point.

Only for like-minded people who are science illiterate and religion addled.