Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Abiogenesis research
422 views
Skip to first unread message
RonO
Aug 10, 2019, 2:40:03 PM8/10/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Still making progress.
http://www.rh.gatech.edu/news/623911/pre-life-building-blocks-spontaneously-align-evolutionary-experiment
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/07/23/1904849116/tab-article-info
If this type of progress is not good enough what is worse than not good
enough?
The point that is made time after time is that it doesn't matter that
abiogenesis research is among the weakest of scientific endeavors. What
is worse than your own not good enough?
Ron Okimoto
http://www.rh.gatech.edu/news/623911/pre-life-building-blocks-spontaneously-align-evolutionary-experiment
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/07/23/1904849116/tab-article-info
If this type of progress is not good enough what is worse than not good
enough?
The point that is made time after time is that it doesn't matter that
abiogenesis research is among the weakest of scientific endeavors. What
is worse than your own not good enough?
Ron Okimoto
Gary Hurd
Aug 10, 2019, 8:20:03 PM8/10/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Gary Hurd
Aug 10, 2019, 8:45:03 PM8/10/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 11:40:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
https://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2019/04/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html
https://youtu.be/wfSE8J_bj1Q
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/05/professor-james-tour-a-liar-for-jesus/
And So on...
PhantomView
Aug 10, 2019, 10:05:03 PM8/10/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
may proceed slowly, but over time a better and better
picture emerges. There is no great emergency here,
no need to hurry, the subject is 4 billion years safely
in the past after all.
jillery
Aug 10, 2019, 10:50:02 PM8/10/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 17:44:03 -0700 (PDT), Gary Hurd <gary...@cox.net>
wrote:
Thank you for following up here on James Tour's lecture. As I noted
in your previous post, that same video was cited in T.O. as evidence
against evolution, when the video says nothing about evolution. To my
regret, I did not say then, nor did I notice, that Tour was lying out
of both sides of his Creationist mouth when he said Szostak's Nature
article was a bunch of lies.
This is a classic tu quoque as regularly practiced by many T.O.
trolls, where they accuse others of doing what they do even while
they're doing it. You say Tour personally apologized to Szostak,
which is to his credit, a sign of personal integrity T.O. trolls
almost never exercise.
--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire
wrote:
in your previous post, that same video was cited in T.O. as evidence
against evolution, when the video says nothing about evolution. To my
regret, I did not say then, nor did I notice, that Tour was lying out
of both sides of his Creationist mouth when he said Szostak's Nature
article was a bunch of lies.
This is a classic tu quoque as regularly practiced by many T.O.
trolls, where they accuse others of doing what they do even while
they're doing it. You say Tour personally apologized to Szostak,
which is to his credit, a sign of personal integrity T.O. trolls
almost never exercise.
--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire
Gary Hurd
Aug 11, 2019, 12:30:02 AM8/11/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
https://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2019/07/prof-james-tour-and-discotutes-still_16.html
And then some more creatocrap from James Tour;
https://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2019/07/james-tour-lies-again-3.html
Ron Dean
Aug 11, 2019, 3:20:04 PM8/11/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
the contrary. There is not a single case of a living organism arriving
from non life. Indeed Louis Pasteur's rule is that life comes only from
life and no one can point to a single verifiable exception to this rule.
But, there is life, we know it exit! Consequently, deliberate,
intentional formation of life for a purpose by an intelligent designer
can be disbelieved, but not discounted. So design stands as the best option.
> Ron Okimoto
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
RonO
Aug 11, 2019, 3:40:05 PM8/11/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Why is worse than not good enough, good enough for you?
Why would you run from the top six and still go back to one of the
arguments that you are running from? What do you not get about not good
enough by your own standards?
Ron Okimoto
jillery
Aug 11, 2019, 3:50:02 PM8/11/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 15:18:03 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
wrote:
>On 8/10/2019 2:39 PM, RonO wrote:
>> Still making progress.
>> http://www.rh.gatech.edu/news/623911/pre-life-building-blocks-spontaneously-align-evolutionary-experiment
>>
>>
>> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/07/23/1904849116/tab-article-info
>>
>> If this type of progress is not good enough what is worse than not good
>> enough?
>>
>> The point that is made time after time is that it doesn't matter that
>> abiogenesis research is among the weakest of scientific endeavors. What
>> is worse than your own not good enough?
> >
>There is absolutely no solid empirical evidence of abiogenesis. Quite
>the contrary. There is not a single case of a living organism arriving
>from non life. Indeed Louis Pasteur's rule is that life comes only from
>life and no one can point to a single verifiable exception to this rule.
>
>But, there is life, we know it exit! Consequently, deliberate,
>intentional formation of life for a purpose by an intelligent designer
>can be disbelieved, but not discounted. So design stands as the best option.
Your idiosyncratic definitions of "solid empirical evidence" and
"abiogenesis" notwithstanding, the fact that life exists where it once
did not, is absolute proof of abiogenesis.
Once again, the question is not that abiogenesis happened, but how.
You can't reasonably declare by fiat that the existence of life is
evidence of intent or purpose or an intelligent designer, or that an
intelligent designer is the best explanation for the existence of
life. You're just saying you're right because you say you're right.
wrote:
>On 8/10/2019 2:39 PM, RonO wrote:
>> Still making progress.
>> http://www.rh.gatech.edu/news/623911/pre-life-building-blocks-spontaneously-align-evolutionary-experiment
>>
>>
>> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/07/23/1904849116/tab-article-info
>>
>> If this type of progress is not good enough what is worse than not good
>> enough?
>>
>> The point that is made time after time is that it doesn't matter that
>> abiogenesis research is among the weakest of scientific endeavors. What
>> is worse than your own not good enough?
> >
>There is absolutely no solid empirical evidence of abiogenesis. Quite
>the contrary. There is not a single case of a living organism arriving
>from non life. Indeed Louis Pasteur's rule is that life comes only from
>life and no one can point to a single verifiable exception to this rule.
>
>But, there is life, we know it exit! Consequently, deliberate,
>intentional formation of life for a purpose by an intelligent designer
>can be disbelieved, but not discounted. So design stands as the best option.
"abiogenesis" notwithstanding, the fact that life exists where it once
did not, is absolute proof of abiogenesis.
Once again, the question is not that abiogenesis happened, but how.
You can't reasonably declare by fiat that the existence of life is
evidence of intent or purpose or an intelligent designer, or that an
intelligent designer is the best explanation for the existence of
life. You're just saying you're right because you say you're right.
Ron Dean
Aug 11, 2019, 5:30:03 PM8/11/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
>
> Why would you run from the top six and still go back to one of the
> arguments that you are running from? What do you not get about not good
> enough by your own standards?
>
Still Doesn't! I'm just missing something!
> Why would you run from the top six and still go back to one of the
> arguments that you are running from? What do you not get about not good
> enough by your own standards?
>
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
Ron Dean
Aug 11, 2019, 5:30:03 PM8/11/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 8/11/2019 3:47 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 15:18:03 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/10/2019 2:39 PM, RonO wrote:
>>> Still making progress.
>>> http://www.rh.gatech.edu/news/623911/pre-life-building-blocks-spontaneously-align-evolutionary-experiment
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/07/23/1904849116/tab-article-info
>>>
>>> If this type of progress is not good enough what is worse than not good
>>> enough?
>>>
>>> The point that is made time after time is that it doesn't matter that
>>> abiogenesis research is among the weakest of scientific endeavors. What
>>> is worse than your own not good enough?
>>>
>> There is absolutely no solid empirical evidence of abiogenesis. Quite
>> the contrary. There is not a single case of a living organism arriving
>>from non life. Indeed Louis Pasteur's rule is that life comes only from
>> life and no one can point to a single verifiable exception to this rule.
>>
>> But, there is life, we know it exit! Consequently, deliberate,
>> intentional formation of life for a purpose by an intelligent designer
>> can be disbelieved, but not discounted. So design stands as the best option.
>
>
> Your idiosyncratic definitions of "solid empirical evidence" and
> "abiogenesis" notwithstanding, the fact that life exists where it once
> did not, is absolute proof of abiogenesis.
>
Sorry Jill, I disagree. But sure life exist, but I have to take the
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 15:18:03 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/10/2019 2:39 PM, RonO wrote:
>>> Still making progress.
>>> http://www.rh.gatech.edu/news/623911/pre-life-building-blocks-spontaneously-align-evolutionary-experiment
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/07/23/1904849116/tab-article-info
>>>
>>> If this type of progress is not good enough what is worse than not good
>>> enough?
>>>
>>> The point that is made time after time is that it doesn't matter that
>>> abiogenesis research is among the weakest of scientific endeavors. What
>>> is worse than your own not good enough?
>>>
>> There is absolutely no solid empirical evidence of abiogenesis. Quite
>> the contrary. There is not a single case of a living organism arriving
>>from non life. Indeed Louis Pasteur's rule is that life comes only from
>> life and no one can point to a single verifiable exception to this rule.
>>
>> But, there is life, we know it exit! Consequently, deliberate,
>> intentional formation of life for a purpose by an intelligent designer
>> can be disbelieved, but not discounted. So design stands as the best option.
>
>
> Your idiosyncratic definitions of "solid empirical evidence" and
> "abiogenesis" notwithstanding, the fact that life exists where it once
> did not, is absolute proof of abiogenesis.
>
negative position there is no reason to think life just happened.
>
> Once again, the question is not that abiogenesis happened, but how.
>
That's the problem.
> Once again, the question is not that abiogenesis happened, but how.
>
>
> You can't reasonably declare by fiat that the existence of life is
> evidence of intent or purpose or an intelligent designer, or that an
> intelligent designer is the best explanation for the existence of
> life. You're just saying you're right because you say you're right.
>
No, Life could not happen on it's own. If I picked up a guitar and
> You can't reasonably declare by fiat that the existence of life is
> evidence of intent or purpose or an intelligent designer, or that an
> intelligent designer is the best explanation for the existence of
> life. You're just saying you're right because you say you're right.
>
it's tuned to standard IE 440 Hz/PM. This is empirical evidence a
knowledgeable guitarist was present and tuned it. A non-musician could
not randomly or correctly tune it. It is remotely possible, but the odds
favor the knowledgeable musician over just randomly turning pegs.
Glenn
Aug 11, 2019, 5:40:02 PM8/11/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You screw-offs have been told this many times.
RonO
Aug 11, 2019, 6:15:02 PM8/11/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You claim that what we know about abiogenesis is not good enough, but by
your own standards what do you have? Simple. What is not as good as
your own not good enough? Look at your alternative to find out. That
you can't understand it is just willful ignorance.
>>
>> Why would you run from the top six and still go back to one of the
>> arguments that you are running from? What do you not get about not
>> good enough by your own standards?
> >
> Still Doesn't! I'm just missing something!
can't understand that.
Really, have you thought about why you would go with your ratio argument
as you are running from the best that the ID perps have ever bestowed
upon you. You should, at least, look into the top six enough to know
what you are running from so that you don't do something that stupid again.
Here is the link to help you out. It links to all six of what you can't
deal with, but should have dealt with years ago. Really, this is just
the junk that the ID perps have been feeding you for decades. They just
never admitted that it was the best that they had. Remaining willfully
ignorant doesn't seem to do you any good. Going with second rate junk
doesn't seem to be the way to go. Why not go with the best?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/q49rLAsLd8I/uwunmsgqCAAJ
Ron Okimoto
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>
Ron Dean
Aug 11, 2019, 9:00:02 PM8/11/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
connection between the origin of the Universe and the Origin of life
from dead matter. So, count me as mentally incompetent.
>
> Really, have you thought about why you would go with your ratio argument
> as you are running from the best that the ID perps have ever bestowed
> upon you.
>
On my own, I arrived at a concept of intelligent design even before I
> Really, have you thought about why you would go with your ratio argument
> as you are running from the best that the ID perps have ever bestowed
> upon you.
>
ever heard the term. But I thought of it as"purposeful design".
You should, at least, look into the top six enough to know
> what you are running from so that you don't do something that stupid again.
>
is a single topic, I'm not mentally competent, but I can count to six (6).
>
> Here is the link to help you out. It links to all six of what you can't
> deal with, but should have dealt with years ago. Really, this is just
> the junk that the ID perps have been feeding you for decades.
>
I guess I haven't been listening!
> Here is the link to help you out. It links to all six of what you can't
> deal with, but should have dealt with years ago. Really, this is just
> the junk that the ID perps have been feeding you for decades.
>
>
They just
> never admitted that it was the best that they had. Remaining willfully
> ignorant doesn't seem to do you any good. Going with second rate junk
> doesn't seem to be the way to go. Why not go with the best?
>
I'm beginning to question your knowledge regarding Intelligent design.
They just
> never admitted that it was the best that they had. Remaining willfully
> ignorant doesn't seem to do you any good. Going with second rate junk
> doesn't seem to be the way to go. Why not go with the best?
>
Why do you reject ID? If you know nothing, then you not entitled to an
opinion! And I decided you don't!
Gary Hurd
Aug 11, 2019, 9:50:02 PM8/11/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 2:30:03 PM UTC-7, Ron Dean wrote:
> >
> No, Life could not happen on it's own. If I picked up a guitar and
> it's tuned to standard IE 440 Hz/PM. This is empirical evidence a
> knowledgeable guitarist was present and tuned it. A non-musician could
> not randomly or correctly tune it. It is remotely possible, but the odds
> favor the knowledgeable musician over just randomly turning pegs.
>
Just a little bit of musical history, the 440 A is quite recent. And, there are musical traditions around world, and popular that have no interest with the 440 A, or X, Y, or Z. Plus, there are many professional guitarists that use alternate tuning with different pitch.
> >
> No, Life could not happen on it's own. If I picked up a guitar and
> it's tuned to standard IE 440 Hz/PM. This is empirical evidence a
> knowledgeable guitarist was present and tuned it. A non-musician could
> not randomly or correctly tune it. It is remotely possible, but the odds
> favor the knowledgeable musician over just randomly turning pegs.
>
Your failure to understand the basics of origin of life research is even worse than your musical "expertise."
jillery
Aug 11, 2019, 9:55:02 PM8/11/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 14:35:26 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
How is "life from non-life" different from the Genesis account?
>You're claiming as fact that life originated on Earth from non-living chemicals.
No, I didn't. I may have in other posts, but not above. To the
contrary, I purposefully didn't specify any particular form of
abiogenesis. You just made that up.
>But you have no evidence of that, nor is it a "fact" of any kind.
You really need to learn how to read English.
>Bill is right.
There's no Bill in this thread. Perhaps you mean Dean? If so, no,
he's not right.
>Actually, some propose life being brought to Earth by intelligent agent(s). And you can't discount that.
If said intelligent agents limited themselves to a single introduction
of very primitive life, it would be indistinguishable from homegrown
abiogenesis, and so have no impact on ToE. OTOH if said intelligent
agents introduced novel and complex organisms and/or intervened at
multiple times, the results would be incompatible with the evidence.
>You screw-offs have been told this many times.
And each time said screw-offs corrected you, much as I do here.
wrote:
>You're claiming as fact that life originated on Earth from non-living chemicals.
contrary, I purposefully didn't specify any particular form of
abiogenesis. You just made that up.
>But you have no evidence of that, nor is it a "fact" of any kind.
>Bill is right.
There's no Bill in this thread. Perhaps you mean Dean? If so, no,
he's not right.
>Actually, some propose life being brought to Earth by intelligent agent(s). And you can't discount that.
of very primitive life, it would be indistinguishable from homegrown
abiogenesis, and so have no impact on ToE. OTOH if said intelligent
agents introduced novel and complex organisms and/or intervened at
multiple times, the results would be incompatible with the evidence.
>You screw-offs have been told this many times.
jillery
Aug 11, 2019, 9:55:02 PM8/11/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 17:25:27 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
That you disagree is just an opinion. Everybody has one of those.
What's relevant here are your *reasons* for disagreement. Once again,
you fall short of posting those.
And I neither stated nor implied life just happened. You just made
that up.
>> Once again, the question is not that abiogenesis happened, but how.
> >
>That's the problem.
That's right.
>> You can't reasonably declare by fiat that the existence of life is
>> evidence of intent or purpose or an intelligent designer, or that an
>> intelligent designer is the best explanation for the existence of
>> life. You're just saying you're right because you say you're right.
>>
>No, Life could not happen on it's own.
Even if that was my argument, which it isn't, how do you know? What
stops life from being self-organizing?
>If I picked up a guitar and
>it's tuned to standard IE 440 Hz/PM. This is empirical evidence a
>knowledgeable guitarist was present and tuned it. A non-musician could
>not randomly or correctly tune it. It is remotely possible, but the odds
>favor the knowledgeable musician over just randomly turning pegs.
I read that one too many times to count.
What's relevant here are your *reasons* for disagreement. Once again,
you fall short of posting those.
And I neither stated nor implied life just happened. You just made
that up.
>> Once again, the question is not that abiogenesis happened, but how.
> >
>That's the problem.
>> You can't reasonably declare by fiat that the existence of life is
>> evidence of intent or purpose or an intelligent designer, or that an
>> intelligent designer is the best explanation for the existence of
>> life. You're just saying you're right because you say you're right.
>>
>No, Life could not happen on it's own.
stops life from being self-organizing?
>If I picked up a guitar and
>it's tuned to standard IE 440 Hz/PM. This is empirical evidence a
>knowledgeable guitarist was present and tuned it. A non-musician could
>not randomly or correctly tune it. It is remotely possible, but the odds
>favor the knowledgeable musician over just randomly turning pegs.
Gary Hurd
Aug 11, 2019, 10:05:02 PM8/11/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Czaja AD, Johnson CM, Beard BL, Roden EE, Li WQ,Moorbath S.
2013 “Biological Fe oxidation controlled deposition of banded iron formation in the ca. 3770 Ma Isua Supracrustal Belt (West Greenland)” Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.363, 192–203. (doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2012.12.025)
N.V. Grassineau, P.I. Abell, P.W.U. Appel, D. Lowry, E.G. Nisbet
2006 “Early life signatures in sulfur and carbon isotopes from Isua, Barberton, Wabigoon (Steep Rock), and Belingwe Greenstone Belts (3.8 to 2.7 Ga)” Geol. Soc. Am. Mem., 198: 33–52.
Manfred Schidlowski, Peter W. U. Appel, Rudolf Eichmann and Christian E. Junge
1979 "Carbon isotope geochemistry of the 3.7 × 10^9-yr-old Isua sediments, West Greenland: implications for the Archaean carbon and oxygen cycles" Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 43, 189-199
Rosing, Minik T. and Robert Frei
2004 "U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland – indications of >3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis" Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 217: 237-244.
What we also know is that there was no trace of any hard shell, or boney critters for the next 3.1 billion years.
RonO
Aug 11, 2019, 10:20:02 PM8/11/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
This is the same link that I gave you.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/q49rLAsLd8I/uwunmsgqCAAJ
>>
>> Really, have you thought about why you would go with your ratio
>> argument as you are running from the best that the ID perps have ever
>> bestowed upon you.
> >
> On my own, I arrived at a concept of intelligent design even before I
> ever heard the term. But I thought of it as"purposeful design".
>
>
> You should, at least, look into the top six enough to know
>> what you are running from so that you don't do something that stupid
>> again.
> >
> This site you presented was only about the origin of the universe. This
> is a single topic, I'm not mentally competent, but I can count to six (6).
From the link that I provided:
QUOTE:
Links:
1.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/
2.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe/
3.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-information-in-dna/
4.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-irreducibly-complex-molecular-machines/
5.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-animals/
6.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-humans/
END QUOTE:
>>
>> Here is the link to help you out. It links to all six of what you
>> can't deal with, but should have dealt with years ago. Really, this
>> is just the junk that the ID perps have been feeding you for decades.
> >
> I guess I haven't been listening!
> >
> They just
>> never admitted that it was the best that they had. Remaining
>> willfully ignorant doesn't seem to do you any good. Going with second
>> rate junk doesn't seem to be the way to go. Why not go with the best?
> >
> I'm beginning to question your knowledge regarding Intelligent design.
> Why do you reject ID? If you know nothing, then you not entitled to an
> opinion! And I decided you don't!
ability to count to six. Does the link below look familiar?
Ron Okimoto
Glenn
Aug 11, 2019, 10:35:02 PM8/11/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
>
>
> >You're claiming as fact that life originated on Earth from non-living chemicals.
>
>
> No, I didn't. I may have in other posts, but not above. To the
> contrary, I purposefully didn't specify any particular form of
> abiogenesis. You just made that up.
So you hide behind some ambiguous "form of abiogenesis", and don't bother to define that "form". Yes, you did claim as a matter of fact that life originated on Earth from non-living chemicals, as that is the meaning of abiogenesis.
>
> >You're claiming as fact that life originated on Earth from non-living chemicals.
>
>
> No, I didn't. I may have in other posts, but not above. To the
> contrary, I purposefully didn't specify any particular form of
> abiogenesis. You just made that up.
You can't provide evidence for a specific time where life did not exist, yet you claim it is a fact that there is. You *did* make that claim.
>
>
> >But you have no evidence of that, nor is it a "fact" of any kind.
>
>
> You really need to learn how to read English.
You need to realize that other people can easily see thru your crap.
>
> >But you have no evidence of that, nor is it a "fact" of any kind.
>
>
> You really need to learn how to read English.
>
>
> >Bill is right.
>
>
> There's no Bill in this thread. Perhaps you mean Dean? If so, no,
> he's not right.
>
>
> >Actually, some propose life being brought to Earth by intelligent agent(s). And you can't discount that.
>
>
> If said intelligent agents limited themselves to a single introduction
> of very primitive life, it would be indistinguishable from homegrown
> abiogenesis, and so have no impact on ToE.
That's an empty claim. Your navel awaits.
>
> >Bill is right.
>
>
> There's no Bill in this thread. Perhaps you mean Dean? If so, no,
> he's not right.
>
>
> >Actually, some propose life being brought to Earth by intelligent agent(s). And you can't discount that.
>
>
> If said intelligent agents limited themselves to a single introduction
> of very primitive life, it would be indistinguishable from homegrown
> abiogenesis, and so have no impact on ToE.
>OTOH if said intelligent
> agents introduced novel and complex organisms and/or intervened at
> multiple times, the results would be incompatible with the evidence.
You're a bag of hot air.
>
>
> >You screw-offs have been told this many times.
>
>
> And each time said screw-offs corrected you, much as I do here.
>
You've not corrected me once in years, nor have you corrected anything above.
>
> >You screw-offs have been told this many times.
>
>
> And each time said screw-offs corrected you, much as I do here.
>
jillery
Aug 11, 2019, 11:55:03 PM8/11/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
This moment of incoherent stupidity brought to you by:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 19:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
Really? You don't even know what I claimed.
>> >You're claiming as fact that life originated on Earth from non-living chemicals.
>>
>>
>> No, I didn't. I may have in other posts, but not above. To the
>> contrary, I purposefully didn't specify any particular form of
>> abiogenesis. You just made that up.
>
>So you hide behind some ambiguous "form of abiogenesis", and don't bother to define that "form".
Specify what you think I did not specify.
>Yes, you did claim as a matter of fact that life originated on Earth from non-living chemicals, as that is the meaning of abiogenesis.
That is one definition. It's not the one relevant to this topic.
>You can't provide evidence for a specific time where life did not exist, yet you claim it is a fact that there is. You *did* make that claim.
Wow, at least you finally figured out what I actually wrote.
Do you think Earth always existed? Or the Solar System always
existed? Or the universe always existed? If so, there is no physical
evidence you will accept.
>> >But you have no evidence of that, nor is it a "fact" of any kind.
>>
>>
>> You really need to learn how to read English.
>
>You need to realize that other people can easily see thru your crap.
Perhaps, but you can't see through your own crap, no matter how hard
you try.
>> >Bill is right.
>>
>>
>> There's no Bill in this thread. Perhaps you mean Dean? If so, no,
>> he's not right.
>>
>>
>> >Actually, some propose life being brought to Earth by intelligent agent(s). And you can't discount that.
>>
>>
>> If said intelligent agents limited themselves to a single introduction
>> of very primitive life, it would be indistinguishable from homegrown
>> abiogenesis, and so have no impact on ToE.
>
>That's an empty claim. Your navel awaits.
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
>>OTOH if said intelligent
>> agents introduced novel and complex organisms and/or intervened at
>> multiple times, the results would be incompatible with the evidence.
>
>Another empty claim. You don't know that would be "incompatible with the evidence". It may be incompatible with your interpretation of evidence.
>You're a bag of hot air.
Let me know if you post anything coherent.
>> >You screw-offs have been told this many times.
>>
>>
>> And each time said screw-offs corrected you, much as I do here.
>>
>You've not corrected me once in years, nor have you corrected anything above.
Have you been visiting those flat-Earth sites again?
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 19:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> >You're claiming as fact that life originated on Earth from non-living chemicals.
>>
>>
>> No, I didn't. I may have in other posts, but not above. To the
>> contrary, I purposefully didn't specify any particular form of
>> abiogenesis. You just made that up.
>
>So you hide behind some ambiguous "form of abiogenesis", and don't bother to define that "form".
>Yes, you did claim as a matter of fact that life originated on Earth from non-living chemicals, as that is the meaning of abiogenesis.
>You can't provide evidence for a specific time where life did not exist, yet you claim it is a fact that there is. You *did* make that claim.
Do you think Earth always existed? Or the Solar System always
existed? Or the universe always existed? If so, there is no physical
evidence you will accept.
>> >But you have no evidence of that, nor is it a "fact" of any kind.
>>
>>
>> You really need to learn how to read English.
>
>You need to realize that other people can easily see thru your crap.
you try.
>> >Bill is right.
>>
>>
>> There's no Bill in this thread. Perhaps you mean Dean? If so, no,
>> he's not right.
>>
>>
>> >Actually, some propose life being brought to Earth by intelligent agent(s). And you can't discount that.
>>
>>
>> If said intelligent agents limited themselves to a single introduction
>> of very primitive life, it would be indistinguishable from homegrown
>> abiogenesis, and so have no impact on ToE.
>
>That's an empty claim. Your navel awaits.
>>OTOH if said intelligent
>> agents introduced novel and complex organisms and/or intervened at
>> multiple times, the results would be incompatible with the evidence.
>
>Another empty claim. You don't know that would be "incompatible with the evidence". It may be incompatible with your interpretation of evidence.
>You're a bag of hot air.
>> >You screw-offs have been told this many times.
>>
>>
>> And each time said screw-offs corrected you, much as I do here.
>>
>You've not corrected me once in years, nor have you corrected anything above.
Ron Dean
Aug 12, 2019, 1:05:02 AM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 8/11/2019 9:49 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:
> On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 2:30:03 PM UTC-7, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>
>> No, Life could not happen on it's own. If I picked up a guitar and
>> it's tuned to standard IE 440 Hz/PM. This is empirical evidence a
>> knowledgeable guitarist was present and tuned it. A non-musician could
>> not randomly or correctly tune it. It is remotely possible, but the odds
>> favor the knowledgeable musician over just randomly turning pegs.
>>
>
> Just a little bit of musical history, the 440 A is quite recent.
>
>
And, there are musical traditions around world, and popular that have
no interest with the 440 A, or X, Y, or Z. Plus, there are many
professional guitarists that use alternate tuning with different pitch.
>
I didn't intend to give a history of music. But If you want to play in
> On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 2:30:03 PM UTC-7, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>
>> No, Life could not happen on it's own. If I picked up a guitar and
>> it's tuned to standard IE 440 Hz/PM. This is empirical evidence a
>> knowledgeable guitarist was present and tuned it. A non-musician could
>> not randomly or correctly tune it. It is remotely possible, but the odds
>> favor the knowledgeable musician over just randomly turning pegs.
>>
>
> Just a little bit of musical history, the 440 A is quite recent.
>
>
And, there are musical traditions around world, and popular that have
no interest with the 440 A, or X, Y, or Z. Plus, there are many
professional guitarists that use alternate tuning with different pitch.
>
a group, then your instrument needs it's A string to be tune. There are
a few that tune A string to 431 HZ.
There is no X,Y.Z in music. The scale goes only to G.
>
>
> Your failure to understand the basics of origin of life research is even worse than your musical "expertise."
>
I know far more about music than you obviously do X Y Z.
>
> Your failure to understand the basics of origin of life research is even worse than your musical "expertise."
>
As far as the origin of life is concern, it happens to be
so inexplicable that some scientist say it could have
arrived from space on a meteor or a comet or a spaceship.
Francis Crick for example: (quote)
"In 1973, Crick (together with chemist Leslie Orgel) published an
article describing the theory, and in 1981 he dedicated a full book to
directed panspermia, entitled Life itself.
According to Crick, the idea of panspermia – which means “seeds
everywhere” – was proposed by the physicist Arrhenius at the end of the
19th century. Arrhenius suggested that life on Earth originated from
space, that our world was seeded by spores of micro-organisms traveling
between planets.
But because the radiations in space were thought to be too intense for
the spores to survive, Crick and Orgel postulated a variant of the
theory in which spores were transported by an interplanetary spaceship
sent by an alien civilization!"
>
ofbacteriaandmen.blogspot.com/2012/08/francis-crick-and-directed-panspermia.html
Öö Tiib
Aug 12, 2019, 2:35:03 AM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
If there was no life then something had to bind down the carbon
from carbon dioxide anorganically? Can it be that those pieces
of graphite are evidence of that other process?
Burkhard
Aug 12, 2019, 6:45:03 AM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Ron Dean wrote:
> On 8/10/2019 2:39 PM, RonO wrote:
>> Still making progress.
>> http://www.rh.gatech.edu/news/623911/pre-life-building-blocks-spontaneously-align-evolutionary-experiment
>>
>>
>> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/07/23/1904849116/tab-article-info
>>
>> If this type of progress is not good enough what is worse than not
>> good enough?
>>
>> The point that is made time after time is that it doesn't matter that
>> abiogenesis research is among the weakest of scientific endeavors.
>> What is worse than your own not good enough?
>>
> There is absolutely no solid empirical evidence of abiogenesis. Quite
> the contrary. There is not a single case of a living organism arriving
> from non life. Indeed Louis Pasteur's rule is that life comes only from
> life and no one can point to a single verifiable exception to this rule.
So how often do you see life designed and created from scratch then?
> On 8/10/2019 2:39 PM, RonO wrote:
>> Still making progress.
>> http://www.rh.gatech.edu/news/623911/pre-life-building-blocks-spontaneously-align-evolutionary-experiment
>>
>>
>> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/07/23/1904849116/tab-article-info
>>
>> If this type of progress is not good enough what is worse than not
>> good enough?
>>
>> The point that is made time after time is that it doesn't matter that
>> abiogenesis research is among the weakest of scientific endeavors.
>> What is worse than your own not good enough?
>>
> There is absolutely no solid empirical evidence of abiogenesis. Quite
> the contrary. There is not a single case of a living organism arriving
> from non life. Indeed Louis Pasteur's rule is that life comes only from
> life and no one can point to a single verifiable exception to this rule.
Now, me, I see new life coming into being through natural means all the
time (don;t know if you ever got the birds and bees talk?) Can you point
me to a single verifiable exception to that rule, a new organism whose
attributes are all designed by its maker?
jillery
Aug 12, 2019, 7:10:03 AM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 01:00:12 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
wrote:
>On 8/11/2019 9:49 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 2:30:03 PM UTC-7, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>
>>> No, Life could not happen on it's own. If I picked up a guitar and
>>> it's tuned to standard IE 440 Hz/PM. This is empirical evidence a
>>> knowledgeable guitarist was present and tuned it. A non-musician could
>>> not randomly or correctly tune it. It is remotely possible, but the odds
>>> favor the knowledgeable musician over just randomly turning pegs.
>>>
>>
<fixed attributions>
>> Just a little bit of musical history, the 440 A is quite recent.
>> And, there are musical traditions around world, and popular that have
>>no interest with the 440 A, or X, Y, or Z. Plus, there are many
>>professional guitarists that use alternate tuning with different pitch.
> >
>I didn't intend to give a history of music. But If you want to play in
>a group, then your instrument needs it's A string to be tune. There are
>a few that tune A string to 431 HZ.
>There is no X,Y.Z in music. The scale goes only to G.
<WHOOSH!>
The point you missed here is the same point you missed the last time
you posted this; what matters to a musical group is not that they be
tuned to a specific frequency, but that they be tuned to the same
frequency, whatever that frequency might be.
This is relevant to your analogy, which suggests that life requires an
intelligent tuner to impose a specific arrangement. What you refuse
to accept is that natural processes also impose specific arrangements,
ex. the regularity of crystals. It's no accident that life
demonstrates mathematical properties, but that's from intrinsic
physical properties, not from an intelligent tuner.
>> Your failure to understand the basics of origin of life research is even worse than your musical "expertise."
>>
>I know far more about music than you obviously do X Y Z.
>As far as the origin of life is concern, it happens to be
>so inexplicable that some scientist say it could have
>arrived from space on a meteor or a comet or a spaceship.
>Francis Crick for example: (quote)
You conflate panspermia with directed panspermia. They are not the
same, but instead describe entirely different causes. You do this
regularly despite being corrected. Why is that?
>"In 1973, Crick (together with chemist Leslie Orgel) published an
>article describing the theory, and in 1981 he dedicated a full book to
>directed panspermia, entitled Life itself.
>
>According to Crick, the idea of panspermia – which means “seeds
>everywhere” – was proposed by the physicist Arrhenius at the end of the
>19th century. Arrhenius suggested that life on Earth originated from
>space, that our world was seeded by spores of micro-organisms traveling
>between planets.
>
>But because the radiations in space were thought to be too intense for
>the spores to survive, Crick and Orgel postulated a variant of the
>theory in which spores were transported by an interplanetary spaceship
>sent by an alien civilization!"
> >
>ofbacteriaandmen.blogspot.com/2012/08/francis-crick-and-directed-panspermia.html
wrote:
>On 8/11/2019 9:49 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 2:30:03 PM UTC-7, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>
>>> No, Life could not happen on it's own. If I picked up a guitar and
>>> it's tuned to standard IE 440 Hz/PM. This is empirical evidence a
>>> knowledgeable guitarist was present and tuned it. A non-musician could
>>> not randomly or correctly tune it. It is remotely possible, but the odds
>>> favor the knowledgeable musician over just randomly turning pegs.
>>>
>>
>> Just a little bit of musical history, the 440 A is quite recent.
>> And, there are musical traditions around world, and popular that have
>>no interest with the 440 A, or X, Y, or Z. Plus, there are many
>>professional guitarists that use alternate tuning with different pitch.
> >
>I didn't intend to give a history of music. But If you want to play in
>a group, then your instrument needs it's A string to be tune. There are
>a few that tune A string to 431 HZ.
>There is no X,Y.Z in music. The scale goes only to G.
The point you missed here is the same point you missed the last time
you posted this; what matters to a musical group is not that they be
tuned to a specific frequency, but that they be tuned to the same
frequency, whatever that frequency might be.
This is relevant to your analogy, which suggests that life requires an
intelligent tuner to impose a specific arrangement. What you refuse
to accept is that natural processes also impose specific arrangements,
ex. the regularity of crystals. It's no accident that life
demonstrates mathematical properties, but that's from intrinsic
physical properties, not from an intelligent tuner.
>> Your failure to understand the basics of origin of life research is even worse than your musical "expertise."
>>
>I know far more about music than you obviously do X Y Z.
>As far as the origin of life is concern, it happens to be
>so inexplicable that some scientist say it could have
>arrived from space on a meteor or a comet or a spaceship.
>Francis Crick for example: (quote)
same, but instead describe entirely different causes. You do this
regularly despite being corrected. Why is that?
>"In 1973, Crick (together with chemist Leslie Orgel) published an
>article describing the theory, and in 1981 he dedicated a full book to
>directed panspermia, entitled Life itself.
>
>According to Crick, the idea of panspermia – which means “seeds
>everywhere” – was proposed by the physicist Arrhenius at the end of the
>19th century. Arrhenius suggested that life on Earth originated from
>space, that our world was seeded by spores of micro-organisms traveling
>between planets.
>
>But because the radiations in space were thought to be too intense for
>the spores to survive, Crick and Orgel postulated a variant of the
>theory in which spores were transported by an interplanetary spaceship
>sent by an alien civilization!"
> >
>ofbacteriaandmen.blogspot.com/2012/08/francis-crick-and-directed-panspermia.html
Mark Isaak
Aug 12, 2019, 10:25:02 AM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 8/11/19 2:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> [...]
occasional spontaneous changes to tuning (which is, in fact, the case);
and suppose further that when tuning changes happen, changes which get
the guitar closer to the 440 tuning are significantly more common than
those that take it further away. Now would you be surprised to find a
well-tuned guitar? Because that situation is the one that applies to life.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Omnia disce. Videbis postea nihil esse superfluum."
- Hugh of St. Victor
> [...]
> No, Life could not happen on it's own. If I picked up a guitar and
> it's tuned to standard IE 440 Hz/PM. This is empirical evidence a
> knowledgeable guitarist was present and tuned it. A non-musician could
> not randomly or correctly tune it. It is remotely possible, but the odds
> favor the knowledgeable musician over just randomly turning pegs.
But suppose there is something about guitars which means that there are
> it's tuned to standard IE 440 Hz/PM. This is empirical evidence a
> knowledgeable guitarist was present and tuned it. A non-musician could
> not randomly or correctly tune it. It is remotely possible, but the odds
> favor the knowledgeable musician over just randomly turning pegs.
occasional spontaneous changes to tuning (which is, in fact, the case);
and suppose further that when tuning changes happen, changes which get
the guitar closer to the 440 tuning are significantly more common than
those that take it further away. Now would you be surprised to find a
well-tuned guitar? Because that situation is the one that applies to life.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Omnia disce. Videbis postea nihil esse superfluum."
- Hugh of St. Victor
Vincent Maycock
Aug 12, 2019, 12:00:02 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 01:00:12 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
wrote:
<snip>
>"But because the radiations in space were thought to be too intense for
>the spores to survive, Crick and Orgel postulated a variant of the
>theory in which spores were transported by an interplanetary spaceship
>sent by an alien civilization!"
How do you know your designer wasn't one of these space aliens? After
all, we have about as much evidence for one as for the other!
wrote:
<snip>
>"But because the radiations in space were thought to be too intense for
>the spores to survive, Crick and Orgel postulated a variant of the
>theory in which spores were transported by an interplanetary spaceship
>sent by an alien civilization!"
all, we have about as much evidence for one as for the other!
Gary Hurd
Aug 12, 2019, 12:10:03 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 4:10:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
I see I over estimated Ron Dean.
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
Gary Hurd
Aug 12, 2019, 12:30:03 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 11:35:03 PM UTC-7, Öö Tiib wrote:
> >
> > We know that the oldest confirmed geochemical signature of life on Earth was of a oxygenic micro organism about 3.8 billion years ago. (I am still dubious of the suggested earlier materials).
>
> Why did early Earth not enter runaway greenhouse before that?
> If there was no life then something had to bind down the carbon
> from carbon dioxide anorganically? Can it be that those pieces
> of graphite are evidence of that other process?
>
> >
There has been some work on carbon isotopes in graphite, and kerogens. The question is how to distinguish organic and inorganic processed materials. For an example;
> >
> > We know that the oldest confirmed geochemical signature of life on Earth was of a oxygenic micro organism about 3.8 billion years ago. (I am still dubious of the suggested earlier materials).
>
> Why did early Earth not enter runaway greenhouse before that?
> If there was no life then something had to bind down the carbon
> from carbon dioxide anorganically? Can it be that those pieces
> of graphite are evidence of that other process?
>
> >
Pavlov, Alexander, James K. Kasting, Jeninifer L. Eigenbrode, Katherine H. Freeman
2001 “Organic haze in Earth’s early atmosphere: Source of low-13C Late Archean kerogens?” Geology v.29 no. 11:1003-1006
Their proposed solution was that prior to the 2.5 Ga oxidation event, methanogenic bacteria were locking up CO2.
Ron Dean
Aug 12, 2019, 1:00:02 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 8/12/2019 10:22 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 8/11/19 2:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> [...]
>> No, Life could not happen on it's own. If I picked up a guitar and
>> it's tuned to standard IE 440 Hz/PM. This is empirical evidence a
>> knowledgeable guitarist was present and tuned it. A non-musician could
>> not randomly or correctly tune it. It is remotely possible, but the odds
>> favor the knowledgeable musician over just randomly turning pegs.
>
> But suppose there is something about guitars which means that there are
> occasional spontaneous changes to tuning (which is, in fact, the case);
> and suppose further that when tuning changes happen, changes which get
> the guitar closer to the 440 tuning are significantly more common than
> those that take it further away. Now would you be surprised to find a
> well-tuned guitar? Because that situation is the one that applies to life.
>
Standard tuning of a guitar is 440/ A note, There are many non-standard
> On 8/11/19 2:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> [...]
>> No, Life could not happen on it's own. If I picked up a guitar and
>> it's tuned to standard IE 440 Hz/PM. This is empirical evidence a
>> knowledgeable guitarist was present and tuned it. A non-musician could
>> not randomly or correctly tune it. It is remotely possible, but the odds
>> favor the knowledgeable musician over just randomly turning pegs.
>
> But suppose there is something about guitars which means that there are
> occasional spontaneous changes to tuning (which is, in fact, the case);
> and suppose further that when tuning changes happen, changes which get
> the guitar closer to the 440 tuning are significantly more common than
> those that take it further away. Now would you be surprised to find a
> well-tuned guitar? Because that situation is the one that applies to life.
>
turnings. But 440 hz this is standard tuning for western music. And this
standard is what I originally stated I would recognize.
Bob Casanova
Aug 12, 2019, 2:20:02 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:55:13 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>:
You don't seem to have addressed Mark's point. Perhaps
re-reading his post is in order?
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>:
re-reading his post is in order?
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Öö Tiib
Aug 12, 2019, 2:40:03 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
early bacteria had to be better at it than us. What a shame.
jillery
Aug 12, 2019, 3:40:02 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 09:08:03 -0700 (PDT), Gary Hurd <gary...@cox.net>
wrote:
>On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 4:10:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>
>I see I over estimated Ron Dean.
That's easy to do.
wrote:
>On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 4:10:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>
>I see I over estimated Ron Dean.
jillery
Aug 12, 2019, 3:40:02 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Ron Dean
Aug 12, 2019, 4:20:03 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Ron Dean
Aug 12, 2019, 4:30:02 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 8/12/2019 6:43 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> Ron Dean wrote:
>> On 8/10/2019 2:39 PM, RonO wrote:
>>> Still making progress.
>>> http://www.rh.gatech.edu/news/623911/pre-life-building-blocks-spontaneously-align-evolutionary-experiment
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/07/23/1904849116/tab-article-info
>>>
>>>
>>> If this type of progress is not good enough what is worse than not
>>> good enough?
>>>
>>> The point that is made time after time is that it doesn't matter that
>>> abiogenesis research is among the weakest of scientific endeavors.
>>> What is worse than your own not good enough?
>>>
>> There is absolutely no solid empirical evidence of abiogenesis. Quite
>> the contrary. There is not a single case of a living organism arriving
>> from non life. Indeed Louis Pasteur's rule is that life comes only from
>> life and no one can point to a single verifiable exception to this rule.
>
> So how often do you see life designed and created from scratch then
>
Perhaps only one time. Some 4 billion years ago.
> Ron Dean wrote:
>> On 8/10/2019 2:39 PM, RonO wrote:
>>> Still making progress.
>>> http://www.rh.gatech.edu/news/623911/pre-life-building-blocks-spontaneously-align-evolutionary-experiment
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/07/23/1904849116/tab-article-info
>>>
>>>
>>> If this type of progress is not good enough what is worse than not
>>> good enough?
>>>
>>> The point that is made time after time is that it doesn't matter that
>>> abiogenesis research is among the weakest of scientific endeavors.
>>> What is worse than your own not good enough?
>>>
>> There is absolutely no solid empirical evidence of abiogenesis. Quite
>> the contrary. There is not a single case of a living organism arriving
>> from non life. Indeed Louis Pasteur's rule is that life comes only from
>> life and no one can point to a single verifiable exception to this rule.
>
> So how often do you see life designed and created from scratch then
>
> Now, me, I see new life coming into being through natural means all the
> time (don;t know if you ever got the birds and bees talk?)
>
?
Can you point
> me to a single verifiable exception to that rule, a new organism whose
> attributes are all designed by its maker?
> Unfortunately, we were not around when new organisms arose.
> me to a single verifiable exception to that rule, a new organism whose
> attributes are all designed by its maker?
Burkhard
Aug 12, 2019, 4:35:02 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Ron Dean wrote:
> On 8/12/2019 6:43 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>> Ron Dean wrote:
>>> On 8/10/2019 2:39 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>> Still making progress.
>>>> http://www.rh.gatech.edu/news/623911/pre-life-building-blocks-spontaneously-align-evolutionary-experiment
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/07/23/1904849116/tab-article-info
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If this type of progress is not good enough what is worse than not
>>>> good enough?
>>>>
>>>> The point that is made time after time is that it doesn't matter that
>>>> abiogenesis research is among the weakest of scientific endeavors.
>>>> What is worse than your own not good enough?
>>>>
>>> There is absolutely no solid empirical evidence of abiogenesis. Quite
>>> the contrary. There is not a single case of a living organism arriving
>>> from non life. Indeed Louis Pasteur's rule is that life comes only from
>>> life and no one can point to a single verifiable exception to this rule.
>>
>> So how often do you see life designed and created from scratch then
>>
> Perhaps only one time. Some 4 billion years ago.
And you've seen that? You must be older than I thought.
> On 8/12/2019 6:43 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>> Ron Dean wrote:
>>> On 8/10/2019 2:39 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>> Still making progress.
>>>> http://www.rh.gatech.edu/news/623911/pre-life-building-blocks-spontaneously-align-evolutionary-experiment
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/07/23/1904849116/tab-article-info
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If this type of progress is not good enough what is worse than not
>>>> good enough?
>>>>
>>>> The point that is made time after time is that it doesn't matter that
>>>> abiogenesis research is among the weakest of scientific endeavors.
>>>> What is worse than your own not good enough?
>>>>
>>> There is absolutely no solid empirical evidence of abiogenesis. Quite
>>> the contrary. There is not a single case of a living organism arriving
>>> from non life. Indeed Louis Pasteur's rule is that life comes only from
>>> life and no one can point to a single verifiable exception to this rule.
>>
>> So how often do you see life designed and created from scratch then
>>
> Perhaps only one time. Some 4 billion years ago.
>
>> Now, me, I see new life coming into being through natural means all
>> the time (don;t know if you ever got the birds and bees talk?)
>>
> Birds and bees are living critters. So, what we have is life from life.
> ?
same issue. And in conjunction with the above that means that even by
your own approach, your design inference is much less well supported
than abiogenesis.
Vincent Maycock
Aug 12, 2019, 4:45:03 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:16:29 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
that created life on earth, but you can't be sure? Also, where did the
designer(s) come from, in your view?
wrote:
>On 8/12/2019 11:58 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 01:00:12 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> "But because the radiations in space were thought to be too intense for
>>> the spores to survive, Crick and Orgel postulated a variant of the
>>> theory in which spores were transported by an interplanetary spaceship
>>> sent by an alien civilization!"
>>
>> How do you know your designer wasn't one of these space aliens? After
>> all, we have about as much evidence for one as for the other!
>>
>I make no claims as to the identity of a designer.
So since you make no such claims, you feel it *could be* space aliens
>On 8/12/2019 11:58 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 01:00:12 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> "But because the radiations in space were thought to be too intense for
>>> the spores to survive, Crick and Orgel postulated a variant of the
>>> theory in which spores were transported by an interplanetary spaceship
>>> sent by an alien civilization!"
>>
>> How do you know your designer wasn't one of these space aliens? After
>> all, we have about as much evidence for one as for the other!
>>
>I make no claims as to the identity of a designer.
that created life on earth, but you can't be sure? Also, where did the
designer(s) come from, in your view?
Glenn
Aug 12, 2019, 4:45:03 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Ron Dean
Aug 12, 2019, 4:45:03 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 8/12/2019 7:06 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 01:00:12 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/11/2019 9:49 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 2:30:03 PM UTC-7, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> No, Life could not happen on it's own. If I picked up a guitar and
>>>> it's tuned to standard IE 440 Hz/PM. This is empirical evidence a
>>>> knowledgeable guitarist was present and tuned it. A non-musician could
>>>> not randomly or correctly tune it. It is remotely possible, but the odds
>>>> favor the knowledgeable musician over just randomly turning pegs.
>>>>
>>>
>
> <fixed attributions>
>
>>> Just a little bit of musical history, the 440 A is quite recent.
>>> And, there are musical traditions around world, and popular that have
>>> no interest with the 440 A, or X, Y, or Z. Plus, there are many
>>> professional guitarists that use alternate tuning with different pitch.
>>>
>> I didn't intend to give a history of music. But If you want to play in
>> a group, then your instrument needs it's A string to be tune. There are
>> a few that tune A string to 431 HZ.
>> There is no X,Y.Z in music. The scale goes only to G.
>
>
> <WHOOSH!>
>
> The point you missed here is the same point you missed the last time
> you posted this; what matters to a musical group is not that they be
> tuned to a specific frequency, but that they be tuned to the same
> frequency, whatever that frequency might be.
>
No Jill, there is one _standard_in Western music and that is A at 440 HZ
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 01:00:12 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/11/2019 9:49 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 2:30:03 PM UTC-7, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> No, Life could not happen on it's own. If I picked up a guitar and
>>>> it's tuned to standard IE 440 Hz/PM. This is empirical evidence a
>>>> knowledgeable guitarist was present and tuned it. A non-musician could
>>>> not randomly or correctly tune it. It is remotely possible, but the odds
>>>> favor the knowledgeable musician over just randomly turning pegs.
>>>>
>>>
>
> <fixed attributions>
>
>>> Just a little bit of musical history, the 440 A is quite recent.
>>> And, there are musical traditions around world, and popular that have
>>> no interest with the 440 A, or X, Y, or Z. Plus, there are many
>>> professional guitarists that use alternate tuning with different pitch.
>>>
>> I didn't intend to give a history of music. But If you want to play in
>> a group, then your instrument needs it's A string to be tune. There are
>> a few that tune A string to 431 HZ.
>> There is no X,Y.Z in music. The scale goes only to G.
>
>
> <WHOOSH!>
>
> The point you missed here is the same point you missed the last time
> you posted this; what matters to a musical group is not that they be
> tuned to a specific frequency, but that they be tuned to the same
> frequency, whatever that frequency might be.
>
There may be hundreds of non-standard tunings, but only one standard.
>
> This is relevant to your analogy, which suggests that life requires an
> intelligent tuner to impose a specific arrangement. What you refuse
> to accept is that natural processes also impose specific arrangements,
> ex. the regularity of crystals. It's no accident that life
> demonstrates mathematical properties, but that's from intrinsic
> physical properties, not from an intelligent tuner.
>
Different crystals has its own specific arrangement.
> This is relevant to your analogy, which suggests that life requires an
> intelligent tuner to impose a specific arrangement. What you refuse
> to accept is that natural processes also impose specific arrangements,
> ex. the regularity of crystals. It's no accident that life
> demonstrates mathematical properties, but that's from intrinsic
> physical properties, not from an intelligent tuner.
>
>
>>> Your failure to understand the basics of origin of life research is even worse than your musical "expertise."
>
I play the piano and the guitar. So, I am musically talented to some
>>> Your failure to understand the basics of origin of life research is even worse than your musical "expertise."
>
degree. Having take piano for 12 years and teaching myself guitar
utilizing books by experts. In HS I was part of the band. I played
violin.
>>>
>> I know far more about music than you obviously do X Y Z.
>> As far as the origin of life is concern, it happens to be
>> so inexplicable that some scientist say it could have
>> arrived from space on a meteor or a comet or a spaceship.
>> Francis Crick for example: (quote)
>
>
> You conflate panspermia with directed panspermia. They are not the
> same, but instead describe entirely different causes. You do this
> regularly despite being corrected. Why is that?
>
>
>> "In 1973, Crick (together with chemist Leslie Orgel) published an
>> article describing the theory, and in 1981 he dedicated a full book to
>> directed panspermia, entitled Life itself.
>>
>> According to Crick, the idea of panspermia – which means “seeds
>> everywhere” – was proposed by the physicist Arrhenius at the end of the
>> 19th century. Arrhenius suggested that life on Earth originated from
>> space, that our world was seeded by spores of micro-organisms traveling
>> between planets.
>>
>> But because the radiations in space were thought to be too intense for
>> the spores to survive, Crick and Orgel postulated a variant of the
>> theory in which spores were transported by an interplanetary spaceship
>> sent by an alien civilization!"
>>>
>> ofbacteriaandmen.blogspot.com/2012/08/francis-crick-and-directed-panspermia.html
>
>
>> I know far more about music than you obviously do X Y Z.
>> As far as the origin of life is concern, it happens to be
>> so inexplicable that some scientist say it could have
>> arrived from space on a meteor or a comet or a spaceship.
>> Francis Crick for example: (quote)
>
>
> You conflate panspermia with directed panspermia. They are not the
> same, but instead describe entirely different causes. You do this
> regularly despite being corrected. Why is that?
>
>
>> "In 1973, Crick (together with chemist Leslie Orgel) published an
>> article describing the theory, and in 1981 he dedicated a full book to
>> directed panspermia, entitled Life itself.
>>
>> According to Crick, the idea of panspermia – which means “seeds
>> everywhere” – was proposed by the physicist Arrhenius at the end of the
>> 19th century. Arrhenius suggested that life on Earth originated from
>> space, that our world was seeded by spores of micro-organisms traveling
>> between planets.
>>
>> But because the radiations in space were thought to be too intense for
>> the spores to survive, Crick and Orgel postulated a variant of the
>> theory in which spores were transported by an interplanetary spaceship
>> sent by an alien civilization!"
>>>
>> ofbacteriaandmen.blogspot.com/2012/08/francis-crick-and-directed-panspermia.html
>
>
Ron Dean
Aug 12, 2019, 4:55:02 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 8/12/2019 2:15 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:55:13 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>:
>
>> On 8/12/2019 10:22 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>>> On 8/11/19 2:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>
>>>> No, Life could not happen on it's own. If I picked up a guitar and
>>>> it's tuned to standard IE 440 Hz/PM. This is empirical evidence a
>>>> knowledgeable guitarist was present and tuned it. A non-musician could
>>>> not randomly or correctly tune it. It is remotely possible, but the odds
>>>> favor the knowledgeable musician over just randomly turning pegs.
>
>>> But suppose there is something about guitars which means that there are
>>> occasional spontaneous changes to tuning (which is, in fact, the case);
>>> and suppose further that when tuning changes happen, changes which get
>>> the guitar closer to the 440 tuning are significantly more common than
>>> those that take it further away. Now would you be surprised to find a
>>> well-tuned guitar? Because that situation is the one that applies to life.
>
>> Standard tuning of a guitar is 440/ A note, There are many non-standard
>> turnings. But 440 hz this is standard tuning for western music. And this
>> standard is what I originally stated I would recognize.
>
> You don't seem to have addressed Mark's point. Perhaps
> re-reading his post is in order?
>
A properly tuned guitar can automatically change slightly due to change
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:55:13 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>:
>
>> On 8/12/2019 10:22 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>>> On 8/11/19 2:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>
>>>> No, Life could not happen on it's own. If I picked up a guitar and
>>>> it's tuned to standard IE 440 Hz/PM. This is empirical evidence a
>>>> knowledgeable guitarist was present and tuned it. A non-musician could
>>>> not randomly or correctly tune it. It is remotely possible, but the odds
>>>> favor the knowledgeable musician over just randomly turning pegs.
>
>>> But suppose there is something about guitars which means that there are
>>> occasional spontaneous changes to tuning (which is, in fact, the case);
>>> and suppose further that when tuning changes happen, changes which get
>>> the guitar closer to the 440 tuning are significantly more common than
>>> those that take it further away. Now would you be surprised to find a
>>> well-tuned guitar? Because that situation is the one that applies to life.
>
>> Standard tuning of a guitar is 440/ A note, There are many non-standard
>> turnings. But 440 hz this is standard tuning for western music. And this
>> standard is what I originally stated I would recognize.
>
> You don't seem to have addressed Mark's point. Perhaps
> re-reading his post is in order?
>
is temperature. This is rather common. Also new strings have a higher
tension, but after time passes and playing the strings tend to loosen.
But if the change from standard re-tuning is necessary.
Vincent Maycock
Aug 12, 2019, 5:00:02 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 13:40:26 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
>On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 9:00:02 AM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 01:00:12 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >"But because the radiations in space were thought to be too intense for
>> >the spores to survive, Crick and Orgel postulated a variant of the
>> >theory in which spores were transported by an interplanetary spaceship
>> >sent by an alien civilization!"
>>
>> How do you know your designer wasn't one of these space aliens? After
>> all, we have about as much evidence for one as for the other!
>
>There are arguments for and against that, but ID theory does not specify or require a specific designer.
Of course, but does it require the designer to *not* be something,
like space aliens?
<snip>
wrote:
>On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 9:00:02 AM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 01:00:12 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >"But because the radiations in space were thought to be too intense for
>> >the spores to survive, Crick and Orgel postulated a variant of the
>> >theory in which spores were transported by an interplanetary spaceship
>> >sent by an alien civilization!"
>>
>> How do you know your designer wasn't one of these space aliens? After
>> all, we have about as much evidence for one as for the other!
>
>There are arguments for and against that, but ID theory does not specify or require a specific designer.
like space aliens?
<snip>
Ron Dean
Aug 12, 2019, 5:20:02 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
8 t9 18 years of age.
So, I do understand music from a fair to a good degree. I do _not_
have a degree in music, but I do know and understand music theory
to a considerable degree. what instruments do you play? How much
theory do you know and understand?
Bill Rogers
Aug 12, 2019, 5:25:02 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Glenn
Aug 12, 2019, 5:40:02 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Burkhard
Aug 12, 2019, 5:55:02 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
standards, one for choirs (Chorton) and one for orchestra, (Kammerton),
so that sometimes, choir and instruments would perform to a different
pitch.
In short there is not *one standard* for Western music. The standard you
are familiar with is the late 19th-21st century North American standard
for playing post-Baroque Western music.
really promised myself not to get dragged into TO again, until such a
time as I'm a bit more on top of my work again...) that the 440 standard
was first proposed by Johann Heinrich Scheibler, who had developed a new
way of measuring pitch, and it was accepted as "a" (though as you
rightly say, not "the") standard by the Gesellschaft Deutscher
Naturforscher und Ärzte (Association of German natural scientists and
medical doctors) in 1834 - the UK and US adopted it somewhat later.
Ron Dean
Aug 12, 2019, 6:05:02 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 8/11/2019 10:15 PM, RonO wrote:
> On 8/11/2019 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> On 8/11/2019 6:13 PM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2019 4:26 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/2019 3:37 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> enough? Why is worse than not good enough, good enough for you?
>>>> >
>>>> I'm sorry Ron, but this just didn't make any sense to me.
>>>
>>> It has been what you have been running from in denial for a long time.
>>>
>>> You claim that what we know about abiogenesis is not good enough, but
>>> by your own standards what do you have? Simple. What is not as good
>>> as your own not good enough? Look at your alternative to find out.
>>> That you can't understand it is just willful ignorance.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would you run from the top six and still go back to one of the
>>>>> arguments that you are running from? What do you not get about not
>>>>> good enough by your own standards?
>>>> >
>>>> Still Doesn't! I'm just missing something!
>>>
>>> It is called mental competence, but missing it means that you
>>> probably can't understand that.
>> >
>> I read part of the site you offered, and I failed to recognize the
>> connection between the origin of the Universe and the Origin of life
>> from dead matter. So, count me as mentally incompetent.
>
> You obviously did not because the link is to a post that has links to
> all 6.
>
> This is the same link that I gave you.
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/q49rLAsLd8I/uwunmsgqCAAJ
>
>>>
>>> Really, have you thought about why you would go with your ratio
>>> argument as you are running from the best that the ID perps have ever
>>> bestowed upon you.
>> >
>> On my own, I arrived at a concept of intelligent design even before I
>> ever heard the term. But I thought of it as"purposeful design".
>>
>>
>> You should, at least, look into the top six enough to know
>>> what you are running from so that you don't do something that stupid
>>> again.
>> >
>> This site you presented was only about the origin of the universe.
>> This is a single topic, I'm not mentally competent, but I can count to
>> six (6).
>
> You obviously can't count to six.
>
> From the link that I provided:
>
> QUOTE:
> Links:
> 1.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/
>
> 2.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe/
>
>
>
> 3.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-information-in-dna/
>
>
>
> 4.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-irreducibly-complex-molecular-machines/
>
>
>
> 5.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-animals/
>
> 6.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-humans/
> END QUOTE:
>
>
>>>
>>> Here is the link to help you out. It links to all six of what you
>>> can't deal with, but should have dealt with years ago. Really, this
>>> is just the junk that the ID perps have been feeding you for decades.
>> >
>> I guess I haven't been listening!
>
> Weird isn't it. Maybe you shouldn't run from reality.
>
Ok, I never saw these before. But I would like to cee a criticism
by someone without the ultimate extreme bias I see non TO WHo can give
a fair and honest criticism of these six evidences. What is wrong with
them
1) "The Origin Of the Universe". There is no problem with the Big bang
as the origin of the Universe. There must have been a cause.
2) "The Fine Tuning of the Laws of the universe"
There is evidence of fine tuning of the laws of science,
3) "The Origin of Information in DNA and the Origin of Life".
This is a gap in our knowledge. It's possible that information in DNA
is designed. I;ve seen no evidence to the contrary
4) "The Origin of Irreducible Complex Molecular Machines."
This is the mouse trap argument. This sounds reasonable. Without
the completed mouse trap it attracts and catches no mice.
5) "The origin of Animals". I think this is outdated.
There is nothing about Homeobox Genes.
6) "The Origin of Humans"
This is the samd with Animals - It's outdated.
>> >
>> They just
>>> never admitted that it was the best that they had. Remaining
>>> willfully ignorant doesn't seem to do you any good. Going with
>>> second rate junk doesn't seem to be the way to go. Why not go with
>>> the best?
>> >
>> I'm beginning to question your knowledge regarding Intelligent design.
>> Why do you reject ID? If you know nothing, then you not entitled to an
>> opinion! And I decided you don't!
>
> You should question your own knowledge of intelligent design, and your
> ability to count to six. Does the link below look familiar?
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/q49rLAsLd8I/uwunmsgqCAAJ
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> On 8/11/2019 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> On 8/11/2019 6:13 PM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2019 4:26 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/2019 3:37 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> On 8/11/2019 2:18 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/10/2019 2:39 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>> Still making progress.
>>>>>>> http://www.rh.gatech.edu/news/623911/pre-life-building-blocks-spontaneously-align-evolutionary-experiment
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/07/23/1904849116/tab-article-info
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If this type of progress is not good enough what is worse than
>>>>>>> not good enough?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The point that is made time after time is that it doesn't matter
>>>>>>> that abiogenesis research is among the weakest of scientific
>>>>>>> endeavors. What is worse than your own not good enough?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> There is absolutely no solid empirical evidence of abiogenesis.
>>>>>> Quite the contrary. There is not a single case of a living
>>>>>> organism arriving from non life. Indeed Louis Pasteur's rule is
>>>>>> that life comes only from life and no one can point to a single
>>>>>> verifiable exception to this rule.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/10/2019 2:39 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>> Still making progress.
>>>>>>> http://www.rh.gatech.edu/news/623911/pre-life-building-blocks-spontaneously-align-evolutionary-experiment
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/07/23/1904849116/tab-article-info
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If this type of progress is not good enough what is worse than
>>>>>>> not good enough?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The point that is made time after time is that it doesn't matter
>>>>>>> that abiogenesis research is among the weakest of scientific
>>>>>>> endeavors. What is worse than your own not good enough?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> There is absolutely no solid empirical evidence of abiogenesis.
>>>>>> Quite the contrary. There is not a single case of a living
>>>>>> organism arriving from non life. Indeed Louis Pasteur's rule is
>>>>>> that life comes only from life and no one can point to a single
>>>>>> verifiable exception to this rule.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, there is life, we know it exit! Consequently, deliberate,
>>>>>> intentional formation of life for a purpose by an intelligent
>>>>>> designer
>>>>>> can be disbelieved, but not discounted. So design stands as the
>>>>>> best option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Ron Okimoto
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> intentional formation of life for a purpose by an intelligent
>>>>>> designer
>>>>>> can be disbelieved, but not discounted. So design stands as the
>>>>>> best option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Ron Okimoto
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You didn't read the post. What is worse than your own not good
>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> enough? Why is worse than not good enough, good enough for you?
>>>> >
>>>> I'm sorry Ron, but this just didn't make any sense to me.
>>>
>>> It has been what you have been running from in denial for a long time.
>>>
>>> You claim that what we know about abiogenesis is not good enough, but
>>> by your own standards what do you have? Simple. What is not as good
>>> as your own not good enough? Look at your alternative to find out.
>>> That you can't understand it is just willful ignorance.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would you run from the top six and still go back to one of the
>>>>> arguments that you are running from? What do you not get about not
>>>>> good enough by your own standards?
>>>> >
>>>> Still Doesn't! I'm just missing something!
>>>
>>> It is called mental competence, but missing it means that you
>>> probably can't understand that.
>> >
>> I read part of the site you offered, and I failed to recognize the
>> connection between the origin of the Universe and the Origin of life
>> from dead matter. So, count me as mentally incompetent.
>
> You obviously did not because the link is to a post that has links to
> all 6.
>
> This is the same link that I gave you.
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/q49rLAsLd8I/uwunmsgqCAAJ
>
>>>
>>> Really, have you thought about why you would go with your ratio
>>> argument as you are running from the best that the ID perps have ever
>>> bestowed upon you.
>> >
>> On my own, I arrived at a concept of intelligent design even before I
>> ever heard the term. But I thought of it as"purposeful design".
>>
>>
>> You should, at least, look into the top six enough to know
>>> what you are running from so that you don't do something that stupid
>>> again.
>> >
>> This site you presented was only about the origin of the universe.
>> This is a single topic, I'm not mentally competent, but I can count to
>> six (6).
>
> You obviously can't count to six.
>
> From the link that I provided:
>
> QUOTE:
> Links:
> 1.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/
>
> 2.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe/
>
>
>
> 3.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-information-in-dna/
>
>
>
> 4.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-irreducibly-complex-molecular-machines/
>
>
>
> 5.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-animals/
>
> 6.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-humans/
> END QUOTE:
>
>
>>>
>>> Here is the link to help you out. It links to all six of what you
>>> can't deal with, but should have dealt with years ago. Really, this
>>> is just the junk that the ID perps have been feeding you for decades.
>> >
>> I guess I haven't been listening!
>
> Weird isn't it. Maybe you shouldn't run from reality.
>
Ok, I never saw these before. But I would like to cee a criticism
by someone without the ultimate extreme bias I see non TO WHo can give
a fair and honest criticism of these six evidences. What is wrong with
them
1) "The Origin Of the Universe". There is no problem with the Big bang
as the origin of the Universe. There must have been a cause.
2) "The Fine Tuning of the Laws of the universe"
There is evidence of fine tuning of the laws of science,
3) "The Origin of Information in DNA and the Origin of Life".
This is a gap in our knowledge. It's possible that information in DNA
is designed. I;ve seen no evidence to the contrary
4) "The Origin of Irreducible Complex Molecular Machines."
This is the mouse trap argument. This sounds reasonable. Without
the completed mouse trap it attracts and catches no mice.
5) "The origin of Animals". I think this is outdated.
There is nothing about Homeobox Genes.
6) "The Origin of Humans"
This is the samd with Animals - It's outdated.
>> >
>> They just
>>> never admitted that it was the best that they had. Remaining
>>> willfully ignorant doesn't seem to do you any good. Going with
>>> second rate junk doesn't seem to be the way to go. Why not go with
>>> the best?
>> >
>> I'm beginning to question your knowledge regarding Intelligent design.
>> Why do you reject ID? If you know nothing, then you not entitled to an
>> opinion! And I decided you don't!
>
> You should question your own knowledge of intelligent design, and your
> ability to count to six. Does the link below look familiar?
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/q49rLAsLd8I/uwunmsgqCAAJ
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
RonO
Aug 12, 2019, 6:45:02 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Just ask Kalk and Glenn how long they have been running from what the ID
perps bestowed upon them. After this came out Bill claimed that he had
never supported the ID scam. Yes, the same Bill that claimed that he
knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID science. Pagano even
claimed that the 6 were bogus before he quit posting.
You won't find a single IDiot on the internet that has discussed these
6. The ID perps never retracted the material, but there are no IDiots
willing to support the junk. It took the ID perps over 20 years to
admit that this is all they ever had. It is the same junk that failed
the scientific creationists over 30 years ago. Really, take any of the
6 and you will find that the scientific creationists also used the
stupid arguments. Even Behe's IC claptrap turned out to just be the
"flagellum is a designed machine" claims of the scientific creationists.
You won't find a single IDiot willing to support this junk because if it
hadn't failed the scientific creationists there would have been no
reason to change the name of what they were doing.
Ron Okimoto
jillery
Aug 12, 2019, 7:35:03 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:40:27 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
Yes, Ronnie,
>there is one _standard_in Western music and that is A at 440 HZ
>There may be hundreds of non-standard tunings, but only one standard.
Don't start this again. You claimed life could not start on its own.
I presume your comments about tuning musical instruments are supposed
to have something to do with life not starting on its own. So don't
go off on pointless pedantic tangents about tuning musical
instruments. Instead, explain how tuning musical instruments helps to
explain why life can't start on its own.
>> This is relevant to your analogy, which suggests that life requires an
>> intelligent tuner to impose a specific arrangement. What you refuse
>> to accept is that natural processes also impose specific arrangements,
>> ex. the regularity of crystals. It's no accident that life
>> demonstrates mathematical properties, but that's from intrinsic
>> physical properties, not from an intelligent tuner.
>>
>Different crystals has its own specific arrangement.
And this relates to life not starting on its own... how???
>>>> Your failure to understand the basics of origin of life research is even worse than your musical "expertise."
> >
>I play the piano and the guitar. So, I am musically talented to some
>degree. Having take piano for 12 years and teaching myself guitar
>utilizing books by experts. In HS I was part of the band. I played
>violin.
>>>>
>>> I know far more about music than you obviously do X Y Z.
>>> As far as the origin of life is concern, it happens to be
>>> so inexplicable that some scientist say it could have
>>> arrived from space on a meteor or a comet or a spaceship.
>>> Francis Crick for example: (quote)
>>
>>
>> You conflate panspermia with directed panspermia. They are not the
>> same, but instead describe entirely different causes. You do this
>> regularly despite being corrected. Why is that?
No answer. Isn't my question tuned well enough for you?
>>> "In 1973, Crick (together with chemist Leslie Orgel) published an
>>> article describing the theory, and in 1981 he dedicated a full book to
>>> directed panspermia, entitled Life itself.
>>>
>>> According to Crick, the idea of panspermia – which means “seeds
>>> everywhere” – was proposed by the physicist Arrhenius at the end of the
>>> 19th century. Arrhenius suggested that life on Earth originated from
>>> space, that our world was seeded by spores of micro-organisms traveling
>>> between planets.
>>>
>>> But because the radiations in space were thought to be too intense for
>>> the spores to survive, Crick and Orgel postulated a variant of the
>>> theory in which spores were transported by an interplanetary spaceship
>>> sent by an alien civilization!"
>>>>
>>> ofbacteriaandmen.blogspot.com/2012/08/francis-crick-and-directed-panspermia.html
>there is one _standard_in Western music and that is A at 440 HZ
>There may be hundreds of non-standard tunings, but only one standard.
I presume your comments about tuning musical instruments are supposed
to have something to do with life not starting on its own. So don't
go off on pointless pedantic tangents about tuning musical
instruments. Instead, explain how tuning musical instruments helps to
explain why life can't start on its own.
>> This is relevant to your analogy, which suggests that life requires an
>> intelligent tuner to impose a specific arrangement. What you refuse
>> to accept is that natural processes also impose specific arrangements,
>> ex. the regularity of crystals. It's no accident that life
>> demonstrates mathematical properties, but that's from intrinsic
>> physical properties, not from an intelligent tuner.
>>
>Different crystals has its own specific arrangement.
>>>> Your failure to understand the basics of origin of life research is even worse than your musical "expertise."
> >
>I play the piano and the guitar. So, I am musically talented to some
>degree. Having take piano for 12 years and teaching myself guitar
>utilizing books by experts. In HS I was part of the band. I played
>violin.
>>>>
>>> I know far more about music than you obviously do X Y Z.
>>> As far as the origin of life is concern, it happens to be
>>> so inexplicable that some scientist say it could have
>>> arrived from space on a meteor or a comet or a spaceship.
>>> Francis Crick for example: (quote)
>>
>>
>> You conflate panspermia with directed panspermia. They are not the
>> same, but instead describe entirely different causes. You do this
>> regularly despite being corrected. Why is that?
>>> "In 1973, Crick (together with chemist Leslie Orgel) published an
>>> article describing the theory, and in 1981 he dedicated a full book to
>>> directed panspermia, entitled Life itself.
>>>
>>> According to Crick, the idea of panspermia – which means “seeds
>>> everywhere” – was proposed by the physicist Arrhenius at the end of the
>>> 19th century. Arrhenius suggested that life on Earth originated from
>>> space, that our world was seeded by spores of micro-organisms traveling
>>> between planets.
>>>
>>> But because the radiations in space were thought to be too intense for
>>> the spores to survive, Crick and Orgel postulated a variant of the
>>> theory in which spores were transported by an interplanetary spaceship
>>> sent by an alien civilization!"
>>>>
>>> ofbacteriaandmen.blogspot.com/2012/08/francis-crick-and-directed-panspermia.html
jillery
Aug 12, 2019, 7:35:03 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 17:18:12 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
I will answer your question when you explain what your musical
expertise has to do with life not starting on its own.
expertise has to do with life not starting on its own.
Gary Hurd
Aug 12, 2019, 8:05:02 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Mark Isaak
Aug 12, 2019, 10:05:02 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Suppose there is something about guitars which means that there are
occasional spontaneous changes to tuning (which is, in fact, the case);
and suppose further that when tuning changes happen, changes which get
the guitar closer to the 440 tuning are significantly more common than
those that take it further away. Now would you be surprised to find a
guitar which became fine-tuned to 440 without deliberate tuning?
and suppose further that when tuning changes happen, changes which get
the guitar closer to the 440 tuning are significantly more common than
those that take it further away. Now would you be surprised to find a
Because that situation is the one that applies to life.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Omnia disce. Videbis postea nihil esse superfluum."
- Hugh of St. Victor
Ron Dean
Aug 12, 2019, 11:00:02 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
to 440 HZ. This is different from living organizers, since life
naturally adapts to fit the environment it finds itself. And once this
is met there is no further adjustment.
Ron Dean
Aug 12, 2019, 11:10:02 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
that life happen through random and accidental mingling and combinations
of chemical reactions. I compared this to a guitar being tuned to
standard. In both cases a knowledgeable entity had to have been involved.
>> --
>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>>
>> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>> Attributed to Voltaire
>
> OK. I'll wait too.
>
>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>>
>> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>> Attributed to Voltaire
>
> OK. I'll wait too.
>
Ron Dean
Aug 12, 2019, 11:40:02 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I know from experience that if you want to be part of a a band your
instrument had better be tuned to A/440Hz.
Ron Dean
Aug 12, 2019, 11:45:02 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
the history of standards. But If I'm alone, I find 432 HZ to be more
beautiful and pleasing to the nervous system.
..
Ron Dean
Aug 12, 2019, 11:50:02 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Ron Dean
Aug 12, 2019, 11:50:02 PM8/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 8/12/2019 4:32 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> Ron Dean wrote:
>> On 8/12/2019 6:43 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>>> Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> On 8/10/2019 2:39 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> Still making progress.
>>>>> http://www.rh.gatech.edu/news/623911/pre-life-building-blocks-spontaneously-align-evolutionary-experiment
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/07/23/1904849116/tab-article-info
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If this type of progress is not good enough what is worse than not
>>>>> good enough?
>>>>>
>>>>> The point that is made time after time is that it doesn't matter that
>>>>> abiogenesis research is among the weakest of scientific endeavors.
>>>>> What is worse than your own not good enough?
>>>>>
>>>> There is absolutely no solid empirical evidence of abiogenesis. Quite
>>>> the contrary. There is not a single case of a living organism arriving
>>>> from non life. Indeed Louis Pasteur's rule is that life comes only from
>>>> life and no one can point to a single verifiable exception to this
>>>> rule.
>>>
>>> So how often do you see life designed and created from scratch then
>>>
>> Perhaps only one time. Some 4 billion years ago.
>
> And you've seen that? You must be older than I thought.
>
Yes I was a young man then :}
> Ron Dean wrote:
>> On 8/12/2019 6:43 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>>> Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> On 8/10/2019 2:39 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> Still making progress.
>>>>> http://www.rh.gatech.edu/news/623911/pre-life-building-blocks-spontaneously-align-evolutionary-experiment
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/07/23/1904849116/tab-article-info
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If this type of progress is not good enough what is worse than not
>>>>> good enough?
>>>>>
>>>>> The point that is made time after time is that it doesn't matter that
>>>>> abiogenesis research is among the weakest of scientific endeavors.
>>>>> What is worse than your own not good enough?
>>>>>
>>>> There is absolutely no solid empirical evidence of abiogenesis. Quite
>>>> the contrary. There is not a single case of a living organism arriving
>>>> from non life. Indeed Louis Pasteur's rule is that life comes only from
>>>> life and no one can point to a single verifiable exception to this
>>>> rule.
>>>
>>> So how often do you see life designed and created from scratch then
>>>
>> Perhaps only one time. Some 4 billion years ago.
>
> And you've seen that? You must be older than I thought.
>
>>
>>> Now, me, I see new life coming into being through natural means all
>>> the time (don;t know if you ever got the birds and bees talk?)
>>>
>> Birds and bees are living critters. So, what we have is life from life.
>> ?
>
> We have life from natural processes, simply a different way to frame the
> same issue. And in conjunction with the above that means that even by
> your own approach, your design inference is much less well supported
> than abiogenesis.
>
As I said before there are no exceptios known to Pasteur's rule.
>>> Now, me, I see new life coming into being through natural means all
>>> the time (don;t know if you ever got the birds and bees talk?)
>>>
>> Birds and bees are living critters. So, what we have is life from life.
>> ?
>
> We have life from natural processes, simply a different way to frame the
> same issue. And in conjunction with the above that means that even by
> your own approach, your design inference is much less well supported
> than abiogenesis.
>
Ron Dean
Aug 13, 2019, 12:00:03 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 8/12/2019 4:41 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:16:29 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/12/2019 11:58 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 01:00:12 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> "But because the radiations in space were thought to be too intense for
>>>> the spores to survive, Crick and Orgel postulated a variant of the
>>>> theory in which spores were transported by an interplanetary spaceship
>>>> sent by an alien civilization!"
>>>
>>> How do you know your designer wasn't one of these space aliens? After
>>> all, we have about as much evidence for one as for the other!
>>>
>> I make no claims as to the identity of a designer.
>
> So since you make no such claims, you feel it *could be* space aliens
> that created life on earth, but you can't be sure? Also, where did the
> designer(s) come from, in your view?
>
Maybe who knows. When you consider our solar system and the heavy
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:16:29 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/12/2019 11:58 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 01:00:12 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> "But because the radiations in space were thought to be too intense for
>>>> the spores to survive, Crick and Orgel postulated a variant of the
>>>> theory in which spores were transported by an interplanetary spaceship
>>>> sent by an alien civilization!"
>>>
>>> How do you know your designer wasn't one of these space aliens? After
>>> all, we have about as much evidence for one as for the other!
>>>
>> I make no claims as to the identity of a designer.
>
> So since you make no such claims, you feel it *could be* space aliens
> that created life on earth, but you can't be sure? Also, where did the
> designer(s) come from, in your view?
>
elements in our bodies are from second or third generation star system
that went supernova it would be no surprise that there was life
somewhere in the universe far more advanced that we are before our
solar system even came into existence. After all the Universe is 14.7
billion years old and our solar system annd the Earth is only 4.5^9
years old. So there is 10.2 billion years for a designer to arise
and design our system. And Our universe itself might be just the
last in a series of previous universes. If the big bang was 14.7
billion years ago how many big bangs before "our" big bang?
s
Robert Camp
Aug 13, 2019, 12:40:03 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
that means a damn in this context.
>>> So, I do understand music from a fair to a good degree. I do _not_
>>> have a degree in music, but I do know and understand music theory
>>> to a considerable degree. what instruments do you play? How much
>>> theory do you know and understand?
of music theory (how many music theory, history, and physics classes
have you taken?).
And guess what? Again, none of that means a damn in this context.
The fact that you don't understand why neither my nor your claimed
musical expertise is relevant here is instructive as to why you don't
recognize the silliness of your analogy (a tuned guitar), or get the
points others are trying to communicate to you.
You need to take the time to actually _think_ about the arguments you
make, and consider their consequences.
Here, I'll get you started - you're absolutely right that a guitar, set
and calibrated to any particular standard, is evidence for purposeful
tuning. You're absolutely wrong to think that this is analogous in any
meaningful way to abiogenesis. Can you understand why?
Experience tells me that you will ignore all counterarguments, and end
up standing by and repeating this nonsense. I'd love it if you proved me
wrong.
Mark Isaak
Aug 13, 2019, 12:45:02 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
not affect your conclusion that tuning had been done by design.
So all your conclusions about design are worthless.
Burkhard
Aug 13, 2019, 2:15:03 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
music and are HIP, you use 415 (and 430 for Vienna classical, 438 for
romantic)
The New York Philharmonics btw uses 443,in line with general practice by
most German (but Berlin under Karajan used 445), Austrian (but Vienna
uses 444) and Russian orchestras.
Oh, and if you have highland bsgpipes in your band, then tuning is
anywhere between 470 and 480, which I have heard both in Boston and
Newfoundland, so not just a purist Scottish thing. Which coincidentally
is also the Chortin, i.e. what a HIPster would use for some Bach pieces)
ISO 16 is only a suggestion, general practice varies widely.
Burkhard
Aug 13, 2019, 2:15:03 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
natural processes either. That line of reasoning defeats your own
proposition.
jillery
Aug 13, 2019, 7:50:03 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 23:44:47 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
wrote:
As I said before, Pasteur's rule applies to complex life, not
abiogenesis.
>>> Can you point
>>>> me to a single verifiable exception to that rule, a new organism whose
>>>> attributes are all designed by its maker?
>>>> Unfortunately, we were not around when new organisms arose.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But, there is life, we know it exit! Consequently, deliberate,
>>>>> intentional formation of life for a purpose by an intelligent designer
>>>>> can be disbelieved, but not discounted. So design stands as the best
>>>>> option.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
wrote:
abiogenesis.
>>> Can you point
>>>> me to a single verifiable exception to that rule, a new organism whose
>>>> attributes are all designed by its maker?
>>>> Unfortunately, we were not around when new organisms arose.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But, there is life, we know it exit! Consequently, deliberate,
>>>>> intentional formation of life for a purpose by an intelligent designer
>>>>> can be disbelieved, but not discounted. So design stands as the best
>>>>> option.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
jillery
Aug 13, 2019, 7:50:03 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 23:08:59 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
You say you make a comparison, but you never specify the features you
compare or how you evaluate them. Why is that?
compare or how you evaluate them. Why is that?
jillery
Aug 13, 2019, 7:50:03 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 23:58:27 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
That's 13.7 bya, not 14.7. As for other Big Bangs, it's ironic you
embrace them, as they are part of a multiverse you have previously
rejected many times. Even so, universes from other Big Bangs don't
interact, as they separate from each other faster than light.
embrace them, as they are part of a multiverse you have previously
rejected many times. Even so, universes from other Big Bangs don't
interact, as they separate from each other faster than light.
jillery
Aug 13, 2019, 7:50:03 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 22:56:06 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
wrote:
What Mark Isaak describes above is essentially a phase-locked loop. It
technically simple to compare the string frequency to a 440 Hz
reference oscillator and use it to drive a mechanical actuator that
dynamically adjusts the strings to zero their difference. That's
essentially what you do when you tune a guitar, but many musicians
compare the tone they hear to an internal frequency in their mind.
wrote:
technically simple to compare the string frequency to a 440 Hz
reference oscillator and use it to drive a mechanical actuator that
dynamically adjusts the strings to zero their difference. That's
essentially what you do when you tune a guitar, but many musicians
compare the tone they hear to an internal frequency in their mind.
Vincent Maycock
Aug 13, 2019, 9:35:03 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 23:58:27 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
unidentified designer, evidence-wise?
wrote:
>On 8/12/2019 4:41 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:16:29 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/12/2019 11:58 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 01:00:12 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> "But because the radiations in space were thought to be too intense for
>>>>> the spores to survive, Crick and Orgel postulated a variant of the
>>>>> theory in which spores were transported by an interplanetary spaceship
>>>>> sent by an alien civilization!"
>>>>
>>>> How do you know your designer wasn't one of these space aliens? After
>>>> all, we have about as much evidence for one as for the other!
>>>>
>>> I make no claims as to the identity of a designer.
>>
>> So since you make no such claims, you feel it *could be* space aliens
>> that created life on earth, but you can't be sure? Also, where did the
>> designer(s) come from, in your view?
> >
>Maybe who knows.
Does that mean you agree that "space aliens" are on a par with your
>On 8/12/2019 4:41 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:16:29 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/12/2019 11:58 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 01:00:12 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> "But because the radiations in space were thought to be too intense for
>>>>> the spores to survive, Crick and Orgel postulated a variant of the
>>>>> theory in which spores were transported by an interplanetary spaceship
>>>>> sent by an alien civilization!"
>>>>
>>>> How do you know your designer wasn't one of these space aliens? After
>>>> all, we have about as much evidence for one as for the other!
>>>>
>>> I make no claims as to the identity of a designer.
>>
>> So since you make no such claims, you feel it *could be* space aliens
>> that created life on earth, but you can't be sure? Also, where did the
>> designer(s) come from, in your view?
> >
>Maybe who knows.
unidentified designer, evidence-wise?
Ron Dean
Aug 13, 2019, 10:05:03 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 8/13/2019 9:33 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 23:58:27 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/12/2019 4:41 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:16:29 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/12/2019 11:58 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 01:00:12 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "But because the radiations in space were thought to be too intense for
>>>>>> the spores to survive, Crick and Orgel postulated a variant of the
>>>>>> theory in which spores were transported by an interplanetary spaceship
>>>>>> sent by an alien civilization!"
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know your designer wasn't one of these space aliens? After
>>>>> all, we have about as much evidence for one as for the other!
>>>>>
>>>> I make no claims as to the identity of a designer.
>>>
>>> So since you make no such claims, you feel it *could be* space aliens
>>> that created life on earth, but you can't be sure? Also, where did the
>>> designer(s) come from, in your view?
>>>
>> Maybe who knows.
>
> Does that mean you agree that "space aliens" are on a par with your
> unidentified designer, evidence-wise?
>
Since there is no data pointing to the identity of the designer I have
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 23:58:27 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/12/2019 4:41 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:16:29 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/12/2019 11:58 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 01:00:12 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "But because the radiations in space were thought to be too intense for
>>>>>> the spores to survive, Crick and Orgel postulated a variant of the
>>>>>> theory in which spores were transported by an interplanetary spaceship
>>>>>> sent by an alien civilization!"
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know your designer wasn't one of these space aliens? After
>>>>> all, we have about as much evidence for one as for the other!
>>>>>
>>>> I make no claims as to the identity of a designer.
>>>
>>> So since you make no such claims, you feel it *could be* space aliens
>>> that created life on earth, but you can't be sure? Also, where did the
>>> designer(s) come from, in your view?
>>>
>> Maybe who knows.
>
> Does that mean you agree that "space aliens" are on a par with your
> unidentified designer, evidence-wise?
>
no argument against your space aliens. Did you not read what I wrote
below?
Robert Camp
Aug 13, 2019, 10:15:03 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 8/12/19 9:39 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 8/12/19 5:02 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:
>> On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 4:35:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 17:18:12 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/12/2019 3:37 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:55:13 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/12/2019 10:22 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/11/19 2:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>> [...]
Obviously, the reply below was meant for Ron Dean, not Gary.
> On 8/12/19 5:02 PM, Gary Hurd wrote:
>> On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 4:35:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 17:18:12 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/12/2019 3:37 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:55:13 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/12/2019 10:22 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/11/19 2:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>> [...]
As such, I assume it will make just as much of an impression on Ron as
if he had actually read it.
And so it goes...
Ron Dean
Aug 13, 2019, 10:25:03 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Ron Dean
Aug 13, 2019, 10:25:03 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I made the Universe 1 billion years older. I can neither prove or
disprove any of it. But it does seem reasonable. The Universe is
as you say, 13.7. I knew this, the 14.7 was my "alttimers" taking
effect. ;(
Ron Dean
Aug 13, 2019, 10:35:03 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
guitarist will ask another to pluck the low E string on his/her
guitar. And you are right, a few can "hear" it when the HZ is
tuned to the standard frequency (today's US frequency) This usually
takes years/
Vincent Maycock
Aug 13, 2019, 10:35:03 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 10:01:35 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
"My" space aliens? I'm not the one who chooses to invoke them or
something equivalent to them to "solve" the problems he faces.
> Did you not read what I wrote
>below?
Sure. I was just checking that what you meant is what you seemed to
mean.
something equivalent to them to "solve" the problems he faces.
> Did you not read what I wrote
>below?
mean.
Ron Dean
Aug 13, 2019, 10:40:03 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Ron Dean
Aug 13, 2019, 10:50:02 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
to a standard.
If we compare this to a guitar, then:
There are six (6) strings on a standard Spanish guitar. The odds of
random turning the tuning pegs on each of the six strings to the
correct HZ are from extremely low to impossible.
> So all your conclusions about design are worthless.
>
Ron Dean
Aug 13, 2019, 11:25:02 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
randomly coming together and correctly hitting of just the right
chemical reactions to bring about a living organism. The next
chemical reaction takes place then the next, meanwhile the first
chemical reaction is changed and is no longer viable. In a guitar each
of the six strings has to be tuned from the low E string the next string
"A" relative to the low E the next higher string "D" relative to "A"
then "G" string relative to "D" string etc. When the final string high
"E" is tuned relative to B string. Now the low "E" and "A' strings
"D"are etc are changed and out of tune. I do not see why random
chemical reactions would not have the same deleterious effect in the
formation of the firs living cell.
>
> Experience tells me that you will ignore all counterarguments, and end
> up standing by and repeating this nonsense. I'd love it if you proved me
> wrong.
>
I've been wrong before. So if I'm wrong it's okay!
> Experience tells me that you will ignore all counterarguments, and end
> up standing by and repeating this nonsense. I'd love it if you proved me
> wrong.
>
During my life especially during my university years and a decade
afterwards I was a doubter and if I thought about this subject at
all I would have consider myself agnostic.
jillery
Aug 13, 2019, 11:25:02 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 10:47:25 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
wrote:
You're still missing the point. Life isn't random, any more than
tuning your guitar is random. What's "random", as in arbitrary" is
the frequency to which you choose to tune it. There's nothing special
or magical about 440 Hz. It's special only because a group of
musicians agreed to tune to it. How do you not understand this?
>> So all your conclusions about design are worthless.
wrote:
tuning your guitar is random. What's "random", as in arbitrary" is
the frequency to which you choose to tune it. There's nothing special
or magical about 440 Hz. It's special only because a group of
musicians agreed to tune to it. How do you not understand this?
>> So all your conclusions about design are worthless.
Bill Rogers
Aug 13, 2019, 11:25:02 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Bill Rogers
Aug 13, 2019, 11:40:03 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery
Aug 13, 2019, 11:50:03 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 10:20:35 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
Almost certainly. To the best of my knowledge, Pasteur never used the
word, nor mention the concept. Instead he referred to "spontaneous
generation". If you look at his examples, they are of complex life.
Even modern bacteria are more complex than was involved in
abiogenesis.
>>>>> Can you point
>>>>>> me to a single verifiable exception to that rule, a new organism whose
>>>>>> attributes are all designed by its maker?
>>>>>> Unfortunately, we were not around when new organisms arose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, there is life, we know it exit! Consequently, deliberate,
>>>>>>> intentional formation of life for a purpose by an intelligent designer
>>>>>>> can be disbelieved, but not discounted. So design stands as the best
>>>>>>> option.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto
word, nor mention the concept. Instead he referred to "spontaneous
generation". If you look at his examples, they are of complex life.
Even modern bacteria are more complex than was involved in
abiogenesis.
>>>>> Can you point
>>>>>> me to a single verifiable exception to that rule, a new organism whose
>>>>>> attributes are all designed by its maker?
>>>>>> Unfortunately, we were not around when new organisms arose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, there is life, we know it exit! Consequently, deliberate,
>>>>>>> intentional formation of life for a purpose by an intelligent designer
>>>>>>> can be disbelieved, but not discounted. So design stands as the best
>>>>>>> option.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto
Ron Dean
Aug 13, 2019, 11:50:03 AM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 8/12/2019 6:42 PM, RonO wrote:
> On 8/12/2019 5:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> On 8/11/2019 10:15 PM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2019 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/2019 6:13 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> On 8/11/2019 4:26 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/11/2019 3:37 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>> enough? Why is worse than not good enough, good enough for you?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> I'm sorry Ron, but this just didn't make any sense to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has been what you have been running from in denial for a long time.
>>>>>
>>>>> You claim that what we know about abiogenesis is not good enough,
>>>>> but by your own standards what do you have? Simple. What is not
>>>>> as good as your own not good enough? Look at your alternative to
>>>>> find out. That you can't understand it is just willful ignorance.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would you run from the top six and still go back to one of
>>>>>>> the arguments that you are running from? What do you not get
>>>>>>> about not good enough by your own standards?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> Still Doesn't! I'm just missing something!
>>>>>
>>>>> It is called mental competence, but missing it means that you
>>>>> probably can't understand that.
>>>> >
>>>> I read part of the site you offered, and I failed to recognize the
>>>> connection between the origin of the Universe and the Origin of life
>>>> from dead matter. So, count me as mentally incompetent.
>>>
>>> You obviously did not because the link is to a post that has links to
>>> all 6.
>>>
>>> This is the same link that I gave you.
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/q49rLAsLd8I/uwunmsgqCAAJ
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Really, have you thought about why you would go with your ratio
>>>>> argument as you are running from the best that the ID perps have
>>>>> ever bestowed upon you.
>>>> >
>>>> On my own, I arrived at a concept of intelligent design even before
>>>> I ever heard the term. But I thought of it as"purposeful design".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You should, at least, look into the top six enough to know
>>>>> what you are running from so that you don't do something that
>>>>> stupid again.
>>>> >
>>>> This site you presented was only about the origin of the universe.
>>>> This is a single topic, I'm not mentally competent, but I can count
>>>> to six (6).
>>>
>>> You obviously can't count to six.
>>>
>>> From the link that I provided:
>>>
>>> QUOTE:
>>> Links:
>>> 1.
>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/
>>>
>>>
>>> 2.
>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 3.
>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-information-in-dna/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 4.
>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-irreducibly-complex-molecular-machines/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 5.
>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-animals/
>>>
>>> 6.
>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-humans/
>>> END QUOTE:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the link to help you out. It links to all six of what you
>>>>> can't deal with, but should have dealt with years ago. Really,
>>>>> this is just the junk that the ID perps have been feeding you for
>>>>> decades.
>>>> >
>>>> I guess I haven't been listening!
>>>
>>> Weird isn't it. Maybe you shouldn't run from reality.
>>>
>> Ok, I never saw these before. But I would like to see a criticism
>> by someone without the ultimate extreme bias I see non TO WHo can give
>> a fair and honest criticism of these six evidences. What is wrong with
>> them
>> 1) "The Origin Of the Universe". There is no problem with the Big bang
>> as the origin of the Universe. There must have been a cause.
>> 2) "The Fine Tuning of the Laws of the universe"
>> There is evidence of fine tuning of the laws of science,
>> 3) "The Origin of Information in DNA and the Origin of Life".
>> This is a gap in our knowledge. It's possible that information in DNA
>> is designed. I;ve seen no evidence to the contrary
>> 4) "The Origin of Irreducible Complex Molecular Machines."
>> This is the mouse trap argument. This sounds reasonable. Without
>> the completed mouse trap it attracts and catches no mice.
>> 5) "The origin of Animals". I think this is outdated.
>> There is nothing about Homeobox Genes.
>> 6) "The Origin of Humans"
>> This is the samd with Animals - It's outdated.
>
> Dean, you have been running from these 6 for over a year and a half.
>
One cannot be running from something he never saw. I arrived at my
conclusions independently of Discovery Institute or Genesis or any
religious dogma.
> Just ask Kalk and Glenn how long they have been running from what the ID
> perps bestowed upon them. After this came out Bill claimed that he had
> never supported the ID scam.
>
No one bestowed anything upon me. Furthermore I do not consider it
a burden upon me to defend anyone else's belief. The burden of proof is
their views is theirs.
Yes, the same Bill that claimed that he
> knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID science. Pagano even
> claimed that the 6 were bogus before he quit posting.
>
I once worked for NASA with another engineer named Pagano. Do you know
whether or not this Pagano was an electrical engineer.
>
> You won't find a single IDiot on the internet that has discussed these
> 6. The ID perps never retracted the material, but there are no IDiots
> willing to support the junk. It took the ID perps over 20 years to
> admit that this is all they ever had. It is the same junk that failed
> the scientific creationists over 30 years ago. Really, take any of the
> 6 and you will find that the scientific creationists also used the
> stupid arguments. Even Behe's IC claptrap turned out to just be the
> "flagellum is a designed machine" claims of the scientific creationists.
>
> You won't find a single IDiot willing to support this junk because if it
> hadn't failed the scientific creationists there would have been no
> reason to change the name of what they were doing.
>
These six in my opinion misses the single strongest evidence for
deliberate purposeful design and that is the comparatively recently
(1983) discovery of homeobox genes. which are:
1) Extremely ancient - coming into existence prior to the Cambrian
explosion.
2) They are universal - they are present throughout the animal kingdom
3) These genes are "highly Conserved" - they are virtually unchanged
over time.
If true - this as far as I am concerned, is evidence of fore-thought,
planning and purpose. This is engineering programing at it's best!
Ron Dean -
I like _your_ name by the way!
_
> Ron Okimoto
>
>>>> >
>>>> They just
>>>>> never admitted that it was the best that they had. Remaining
>>>>> willfully ignorant doesn't seem to do you any good. Going with
>>>>> second rate junk doesn't seem to be the way to go. Why not go with
>>>>> the best?
>>>> >
>>>> I'm beginning to question your knowledge regarding Intelligent design.
>>>> Why do you reject ID? If you know nothing, then you not entitled to an
>>>> opinion! And I decided you don't!
>>>
>>> You should question your own knowledge of intelligent design, and
>>> your ability to count to six. Does the link below look familiar?
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/q49rLAsLd8I/uwunmsgqCAAJ
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto
> On 8/12/2019 5:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> On 8/11/2019 10:15 PM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2019 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/2019 6:13 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> On 8/11/2019 4:26 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/11/2019 3:37 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/11/2019 2:18 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2019 2:39 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Still making progress.
>>>>>>>>> http://www.rh.gatech.edu/news/623911/pre-life-building-blocks-spontaneously-align-evolutionary-experiment
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/07/23/1904849116/tab-article-info
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If this type of progress is not good enough what is worse than
>>>>>>>>> not good enough?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The point that is made time after time is that it doesn't
>>>>>>>>> matter that abiogenesis research is among the weakest of
>>>>>>>>> scientific endeavors. What is worse than your own not good enough?
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> There is absolutely no solid empirical evidence of abiogenesis.
>>>>>>>> Quite the contrary. There is not a single case of a living
>>>>>>>> organism arriving from non life. Indeed Louis Pasteur's rule is
>>>>>>>> that life comes only from life and no one can point to a single
>>>>>>>> verifiable exception to this rule.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2019 2:39 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Still making progress.
>>>>>>>>> http://www.rh.gatech.edu/news/623911/pre-life-building-blocks-spontaneously-align-evolutionary-experiment
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/07/23/1904849116/tab-article-info
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If this type of progress is not good enough what is worse than
>>>>>>>>> not good enough?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The point that is made time after time is that it doesn't
>>>>>>>>> matter that abiogenesis research is among the weakest of
>>>>>>>>> scientific endeavors. What is worse than your own not good enough?
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> There is absolutely no solid empirical evidence of abiogenesis.
>>>>>>>> Quite the contrary. There is not a single case of a living
>>>>>>>> organism arriving from non life. Indeed Louis Pasteur's rule is
>>>>>>>> that life comes only from life and no one can point to a single
>>>>>>>> verifiable exception to this rule.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, there is life, we know it exit! Consequently, deliberate,
>>>>>>>> intentional formation of life for a purpose by an intelligent
>>>>>>>> designer
>>>>>>>> can be disbelieved, but not discounted. So design stands as the
>>>>>>>> best option.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > Ron Okimoto
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> intentional formation of life for a purpose by an intelligent
>>>>>>>> designer
>>>>>>>> can be disbelieved, but not discounted. So design stands as the
>>>>>>>> best option.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > Ron Okimoto
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>>>>>>> software.
>>>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You didn't read the post. What is worse than your own not good
>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>>>>>>> software.
>>>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> enough? Why is worse than not good enough, good enough for you?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> I'm sorry Ron, but this just didn't make any sense to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has been what you have been running from in denial for a long time.
>>>>>
>>>>> You claim that what we know about abiogenesis is not good enough,
>>>>> but by your own standards what do you have? Simple. What is not
>>>>> as good as your own not good enough? Look at your alternative to
>>>>> find out. That you can't understand it is just willful ignorance.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would you run from the top six and still go back to one of
>>>>>>> the arguments that you are running from? What do you not get
>>>>>>> about not good enough by your own standards?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> Still Doesn't! I'm just missing something!
>>>>>
>>>>> It is called mental competence, but missing it means that you
>>>>> probably can't understand that.
>>>> >
>>>> I read part of the site you offered, and I failed to recognize the
>>>> connection between the origin of the Universe and the Origin of life
>>>> from dead matter. So, count me as mentally incompetent.
>>>
>>> You obviously did not because the link is to a post that has links to
>>> all 6.
>>>
>>> This is the same link that I gave you.
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/q49rLAsLd8I/uwunmsgqCAAJ
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Really, have you thought about why you would go with your ratio
>>>>> argument as you are running from the best that the ID perps have
>>>>> ever bestowed upon you.
>>>> >
>>>> On my own, I arrived at a concept of intelligent design even before
>>>> I ever heard the term. But I thought of it as"purposeful design".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You should, at least, look into the top six enough to know
>>>>> what you are running from so that you don't do something that
>>>>> stupid again.
>>>> >
>>>> This site you presented was only about the origin of the universe.
>>>> This is a single topic, I'm not mentally competent, but I can count
>>>> to six (6).
>>>
>>> You obviously can't count to six.
>>>
>>> From the link that I provided:
>>>
>>> QUOTE:
>>> Links:
>>> 1.
>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/
>>>
>>>
>>> 2.
>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 3.
>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-information-in-dna/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 4.
>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-irreducibly-complex-molecular-machines/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 5.
>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-animals/
>>>
>>> 6.
>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-humans/
>>> END QUOTE:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the link to help you out. It links to all six of what you
>>>>> can't deal with, but should have dealt with years ago. Really,
>>>>> this is just the junk that the ID perps have been feeding you for
>>>>> decades.
>>>> >
>>>> I guess I haven't been listening!
>>>
>>> Weird isn't it. Maybe you shouldn't run from reality.
>>>
>> Ok, I never saw these before. But I would like to see a criticism
>> by someone without the ultimate extreme bias I see non TO WHo can give
>> a fair and honest criticism of these six evidences. What is wrong with
>> them
>> 1) "The Origin Of the Universe". There is no problem with the Big bang
>> as the origin of the Universe. There must have been a cause.
>> 2) "The Fine Tuning of the Laws of the universe"
>> There is evidence of fine tuning of the laws of science,
>> 3) "The Origin of Information in DNA and the Origin of Life".
>> This is a gap in our knowledge. It's possible that information in DNA
>> is designed. I;ve seen no evidence to the contrary
>> 4) "The Origin of Irreducible Complex Molecular Machines."
>> This is the mouse trap argument. This sounds reasonable. Without
>> the completed mouse trap it attracts and catches no mice.
>> 5) "The origin of Animals". I think this is outdated.
>> There is nothing about Homeobox Genes.
>> 6) "The Origin of Humans"
>> This is the samd with Animals - It's outdated.
>
> Dean, you have been running from these 6 for over a year and a half.
>
One cannot be running from something he never saw. I arrived at my
conclusions independently of Discovery Institute or Genesis or any
religious dogma.
> Just ask Kalk and Glenn how long they have been running from what the ID
> perps bestowed upon them. After this came out Bill claimed that he had
> never supported the ID scam.
>
No one bestowed anything upon me. Furthermore I do not consider it
a burden upon me to defend anyone else's belief. The burden of proof is
their views is theirs.
Yes, the same Bill that claimed that he
> knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID science. Pagano even
> claimed that the 6 were bogus before he quit posting.
>
I once worked for NASA with another engineer named Pagano. Do you know
whether or not this Pagano was an electrical engineer.
>
> You won't find a single IDiot on the internet that has discussed these
> 6. The ID perps never retracted the material, but there are no IDiots
> willing to support the junk. It took the ID perps over 20 years to
> admit that this is all they ever had. It is the same junk that failed
> the scientific creationists over 30 years ago. Really, take any of the
> 6 and you will find that the scientific creationists also used the
> stupid arguments. Even Behe's IC claptrap turned out to just be the
> "flagellum is a designed machine" claims of the scientific creationists.
>
> You won't find a single IDiot willing to support this junk because if it
> hadn't failed the scientific creationists there would have been no
> reason to change the name of what they were doing.
>
These six in my opinion misses the single strongest evidence for
deliberate purposeful design and that is the comparatively recently
(1983) discovery of homeobox genes. which are:
1) Extremely ancient - coming into existence prior to the Cambrian
explosion.
2) They are universal - they are present throughout the animal kingdom
3) These genes are "highly Conserved" - they are virtually unchanged
over time.
If true - this as far as I am concerned, is evidence of fore-thought,
planning and purpose. This is engineering programing at it's best!
Ron Dean -
I like _your_ name by the way!
_
> Ron Okimoto
>
>>>> >
>>>> They just
>>>>> never admitted that it was the best that they had. Remaining
>>>>> willfully ignorant doesn't seem to do you any good. Going with
>>>>> second rate junk doesn't seem to be the way to go. Why not go with
>>>>> the best?
>>>> >
>>>> I'm beginning to question your knowledge regarding Intelligent design.
>>>> Why do you reject ID? If you know nothing, then you not entitled to an
>>>> opinion! And I decided you don't!
>>>
>>> You should question your own knowledge of intelligent design, and
>>> your ability to count to six. Does the link below look familiar?
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/q49rLAsLd8I/uwunmsgqCAAJ
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto
Mark Isaak
Aug 13, 2019, 12:00:03 PM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
process. And if you discard any process with a random component, you
discard design too, since all non-trivial design involves some amount of
trial and error.
Bob Casanova
Aug 13, 2019, 2:45:03 PM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:53:30 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>:
>On 8/12/2019 2:15 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:55:13 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>:
>> re-reading his post is in order?
>A properly tuned guitar can automatically change slightly due to change
>is temperature. This is rather common. Also new strings have a higher
>tension, but after time passes and playing the strings tend to loosen.
>But if the change from standard re-tuning is necessary.
That *also* fails to address his point, which is that
selective survival can and does result in unidirectional
change in fitness ("fitness" in this hypothetical case being
"closer to 440Hz"). He wrote:
"...suppose further that when tuning changes happen, changes
"changes".
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>:
>On 8/12/2019 2:15 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:55:13 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>:
>>
>>> On 8/12/2019 10:22 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>
>>>> On 8/11/19 2:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>
>>>>> No, Life could not happen on it's own. If I picked up a guitar and
>>>>> it's tuned to standard IE 440 Hz/PM. This is empirical evidence a
>>>>> knowledgeable guitarist was present and tuned it. A non-musician could
>>>>> not randomly or correctly tune it. It is remotely possible, but the odds
>>>>> favor the knowledgeable musician over just randomly turning pegs.
>>
>>>> But suppose there is something about guitars which means that there are
>>>> occasional spontaneous changes to tuning (which is, in fact, the case);
>>>> and suppose further that when tuning changes happen, changes which get
>>>> the guitar closer to the 440 tuning are significantly more common than
>>>> those that take it further away. Now would you be surprised to find a
>>>> well-tuned guitar? Because that situation is the one that applies to life.
>>> Standard tuning of a guitar is 440/ A note, There are many non-standard
>>> turnings. But 440 hz this is standard tuning for western music. And this
>>> standard is what I originally stated I would recognize.
>> You don't seem to have addressed Mark's point. Perhaps
>>> On 8/12/2019 10:22 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>
>>>> On 8/11/19 2:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>
>>>>> No, Life could not happen on it's own. If I picked up a guitar and
>>>>> it's tuned to standard IE 440 Hz/PM. This is empirical evidence a
>>>>> knowledgeable guitarist was present and tuned it. A non-musician could
>>>>> not randomly or correctly tune it. It is remotely possible, but the odds
>>>>> favor the knowledgeable musician over just randomly turning pegs.
>>
>>>> But suppose there is something about guitars which means that there are
>>>> occasional spontaneous changes to tuning (which is, in fact, the case);
>>>> and suppose further that when tuning changes happen, changes which get
>>>> the guitar closer to the 440 tuning are significantly more common than
>>>> those that take it further away. Now would you be surprised to find a
>>>> well-tuned guitar? Because that situation is the one that applies to life.
>>> Standard tuning of a guitar is 440/ A note, There are many non-standard
>>> turnings. But 440 hz this is standard tuning for western music. And this
>>> standard is what I originally stated I would recognize.
>> re-reading his post is in order?
>A properly tuned guitar can automatically change slightly due to change
>is temperature. This is rather common. Also new strings have a higher
>tension, but after time passes and playing the strings tend to loosen.
>But if the change from standard re-tuning is necessary.
That *also* fails to address his point, which is that
selective survival can and does result in unidirectional
change in fitness ("fitness" in this hypothetical case being
"closer to 440Hz"). He wrote:
"...suppose further that when tuning changes happen, changes
which get the guitar closer to the 440 tuning are
significantly more common than those that take it further
away. Now would you be surprised to find a well-tuned
guitar? Because that situation is the one that applies to
life."
Note especially the part which starts with the word
significantly more common than those that take it further
away. Now would you be surprised to find a well-tuned
guitar? Because that situation is the one that applies to
life."
"changes".
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Ron Dean
Aug 13, 2019, 5:15:03 PM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
no choice but to tune you guitar to their HZ which is generally 440.
>
>>> So all your conclusions about design are worthless.
>
>
Ron Dean
Aug 13, 2019, 5:50:02 PM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery
Aug 13, 2019, 5:55:03 PM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 17:14:10 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
<WHOOSH!>
One more time, you need to tune what you play to the *same standard*
as the rest of the band, but that standard doesn't have to be 449 Hz,
or 440 Hz, or any specific frequency.
>>>> So all your conclusions about design are worthless.
One more time, you need to tune what you play to the *same standard*
as the rest of the band, but that standard doesn't have to be 449 Hz,
or 440 Hz, or any specific frequency.
>>>> So all your conclusions about design are worthless.
RonO
Aug 13, 2019, 8:00:03 PM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Institute you started a couple threads on two of the top evidences and
claimed that you didn't know why they were so bad. What happened?
Just think if you are so utterly ignorant of the past 50 years that you
did come up with the junk independently. Wouldn't you check around to
see how bogus it had been for other creationists that came up with it
before you did? This junk hasn't been the creationist's secret weapons.
They have been feeding this junk to the rubes for over 30 years.
Really, why don't you know that the scientific creationists used to use
these arguments?
>
>> Just ask Kalk and Glenn how long they have been running from what the
>> ID perps bestowed upon them. After this came out Bill claimed that he
>> had never supported the ID scam.
> >
> No one bestowed anything upon me. Furthermore I do not consider it
> a burden upon me to defend anyone else's belief. The burden of proof is
> their views is theirs.
just a creationist scam that creationists are running on themselves.
You just claim that you are running the scam on yourself.
>
> Yes, the same Bill that claimed that he
>> knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID science. Pagano
>> even claimed that the 6 were bogus before he quit posting.
> >
> I once worked for NASA with another engineer named Pagano. Do you know
> whether or not this Pagano was an electrical engineer.
he had to take his meds, and was denied internet access when he
misbehaved. He stopped posting to TO for several years, but came back
as if nothing had changed, got stuck with the best of IDiocy and left again.
>>
>> You won't find a single IDiot on the internet that has discussed these
>> 6. The ID perps never retracted the material, but there are no IDiots
>> willing to support the junk. It took the ID perps over 20 years to
>> admit that this is all they ever had. It is the same junk that failed
>> the scientific creationists over 30 years ago. Really, take any of
>> the 6 and you will find that the scientific creationists also used the
>> stupid arguments. Even Behe's IC claptrap turned out to just be the
>> "flagellum is a designed machine" claims of the scientific creationists.
>>
>> You won't find a single IDiot willing to support this junk because if
>> it hadn't failed the scientific creationists there would have been no
>> reason to change the name of what they were doing.
>>
> These six in my opinion misses the single strongest evidence for
> deliberate purposeful design and that is the comparatively recently
> (1983) discovery of homeobox genes. which are:
he couldn't stop going back to them for second rate stupidity. You only
use this junk to lie to yourself for a bit, but demonstrate that you
ever learned anything from the homeobox genes. Really, integrate what
is known about homeobox genes into your alternative. Don't just use it
for denial purposes and move on to the next denial argument, but
actually learn something. Tell us what you learned.
>
> 1) Extremely ancient - coming into existence prior to the Cambrian
> explosion.
>
> 2) They are universal - they are present throughout the animal kingdom
>
> 3) These genes are "highly Conserved" - they are virtually unchanged
> over time.
that MarkE and Kalk have put up. You were posting when they put up
their new gene denial threads. What did you learn from them about the
evolution of homeobox genes. New lineages of homeobox genes have
evolved at different times during the evolution of multicellular
animals. Genes like Pax6 evolved from the homeobox gene family. Look
up the Sox genes. When did they evole and how have they been used by
the different lineages after they evolved?
Can you learn something from your denial argument?
>
> If true - this as far as I am concerned, is evidence of fore-thought,
> planning and purpose. This is engineering programing at it's best!
loading. He understood that life had been evolving for a very long time
so he claimed that his designer front loaded some basic genes into the
original lifeforms or at various times during the evolution of life on
earth (because some genes likely were not present at the beginning), but
they had obviously evolved normally since their front loading. What
good does that do for you? Behe claims that he hasn't found anything
that the designer must have done for over 400 million years. The
evolution from ape to man could have occurred naturally without any
designer intervention.
What are you claiming?
Tell us what you learned and how it fits into your alternative. What
kind of plan uses descent with modification? Look up the evolution of
the homeobox gene family. What do you not get about the evolution of
these genes?
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/genefamily/homeoboxes
Ron Okimoto
Ron Dean
Aug 13, 2019, 10:40:02 PM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
knowledge or your reasoning ability or your logical explanations, but
rather your utter unjustified, intense hatred, your extreme bias, your
your utter intolerance, name calling, character assassination, smearing
people who you disagreed with, your prejudice against religion. I
suspect that if you had the authority and the power, because of your
fanatical intolerance you would be an extremely dangerous person!
>
I would be willing to carry on a discussion with you if you had a
modicum of civility or a oz of respect! Otherwise you are out of my
picture! But overlooking you insults is too much!
Ron Dean
Aug 13, 2019, 10:55:02 PM8/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
right in that, whatever non-standard HZ the band agrees to, it is their
own unique "standard".
But if they have the desire to be in accord with the traditional
standard they go with A/440 HZ.
I've played with various bands for decades, I can think of no time where
anything other than 440 was the choice.
>
Jill, I know from experience and education I'm right about this!
Öö Tiib
Aug 14, 2019, 2:45:03 AM8/14/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 05:40:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
> On 8/13/2019 7:56 PM, RonO wrote:
> > On 8/13/2019 10:48 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
> >> These six in my opinion misses the single strongest evidence for
> >> deliberate purposeful design and that is the comparatively recently
> >> (1983) discovery of homeobox genes. which are:
> >
> > Bullshit. You are just like MarkE. He understood how bogus ID was, but
> > he couldn't stop going back to them for second rate stupidity. You only
> > use this junk to lie to yourself for a bit, but demonstrate that you
> > ever learned anything from the homeobox genes. Really, integrate what
> > is known about homeobox genes into your alternative. Don't just use it
> > for denial purposes and move on to the next denial argument, but
> > actually learn something. Tell us what you learned.
> >
> You are so difficult to deal with, not because of your intellect or your
> knowledge or your reasoning ability or your logical explanations, but
> rather your utter unjustified, intense hatred, your extreme bias, your
> your utter intolerance, name calling, character assassination, smearing
> people who you disagreed with, your prejudice against religion. I
> suspect that if you had the authority and the power, because of your
> fanatical intolerance you would be an extremely dangerous person!
He is scientist who sees how nothing the creationists/IDiots do is
> On 8/13/2019 7:56 PM, RonO wrote:
> > On 8/13/2019 10:48 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
> >> These six in my opinion misses the single strongest evidence for
> >> deliberate purposeful design and that is the comparatively recently
> >> (1983) discovery of homeobox genes. which are:
> >
> > Bullshit. You are just like MarkE. He understood how bogus ID was, but
> > he couldn't stop going back to them for second rate stupidity. You only
> > use this junk to lie to yourself for a bit, but demonstrate that you
> > ever learned anything from the homeobox genes. Really, integrate what
> > is known about homeobox genes into your alternative. Don't just use it
> > for denial purposes and move on to the next denial argument, but
> > actually learn something. Tell us what you learned.
> >
> You are so difficult to deal with, not because of your intellect or your
> knowledge or your reasoning ability or your logical explanations, but
> rather your utter unjustified, intense hatred, your extreme bias, your
> your utter intolerance, name calling, character assassination, smearing
> people who you disagreed with, your prejudice against religion. I
> suspect that if you had the authority and the power, because of your
> fanatical intolerance you would be an extremely dangerous person!
science. On the contrary, they have to avoid doing any science since
whatever they find in our universe contradicts with some dogma and so
it is doomed to be irreligious or nonconforming. It is only fair to
hate such hypocrisy. On any closer examination all these homeobox or
flagellum or dinosaur soft tissue or eye or just name it arguments
do not hold and so work only as temporary denial from position of
ignorance. And so they end up like Behe admitting in court that the
ID is about same kind of science as astrology is science. Pile of
claims made from grounds of ignorance and lack of evidence is not
science.
RonO
Aug 14, 2019, 6:40:03 AM8/14/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
like the truth. The truth may be bad, but that doesn't mean that I hate
anyone. The truth is just the truth, you should take that into
consideration. Denial is stupid. I do dislike the dishonesty and
incompetence IDiots like you possess, but hatred is projection on your
part. You are the one that doesn't have truth on your side, and what do
you do? Why blame me for your own short comings? I do not have a
prejudice against religion. I was baptized as an adult. I obviously
have an aversion to political scams that misuse religion in a way that
religion has been misused for centuries.
The ID scam bait and switch has been going down for over 17 years. No
creationist IDiot rube has ever gotten the ID science. The scientific
creationist political ploy failed over 30 years ago.
Religion is not science. Lying to yourself about that isn't going to do
you any good. Why bring religion into this when we are talking about
your bogus interpretation of science? The ID scam may have been a
religiously motivated political scam that the creationists are running
on themselves, but it is bogus and dishonest because of their scientific
claims, and not their religious claims. They only lie about their
religious motivation in order to perpetrate the political scam.
> >
> I would be willing to carry on a discussion with you if you had a
> modicum of civility or a oz of respect! Otherwise you are out of my
> picture! But overlooking you insults is too much!
should accept that, but if you don't, how sad will that be?
Look at what you have compared to what started this thread. Abiogenesis
may be among the weakest of sciences, but they are learning something
about nature. All you want to do is deny reality, and what you have is
not as good as what you claim is not good enough. What good can
possibly come by you continuing to do that? We are talking about your
own standards of not good enough, and your alternative obviously has
never risen to your own level of not good enough, so why is that good
enough for you? Really, what is worse than your own notion of not being
good enough? Just look at your alternative to find out.
If you are going to pretend to be interested in the science, at least,
learn something. Willful ignorance and denial isn't learning anything.
Science is just the study of nature. You obviously believe that nature
is the creation, so what have you learned about it?
Ron Okimoto
Vincent Maycock
Aug 14, 2019, 9:20:03 AM8/14/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 17:46:59 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
No, what happened was I caught you making fun of someone else who
believed in space aliens, and I was like, "Hey, what's he doing that
for? He's no better than they are, with his hidden 'designer,'" and I
posted in response to that.
believed in space aliens, and I was like, "Hey, what's he doing that
for? He's no better than they are, with his hidden 'designer,'" and I
posted in response to that.
jillery
Aug 14, 2019, 9:55:02 AM8/14/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 09:17:24 -0400, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com>
To refresh Dean's odd lapse of memory:
***********************************
<wn64F.174756$I%1.2...@fx08.iad>
>>>> Did you not read what I wrote
>>>> below?
>>>
>>> Sure. I was just checking that what you meant is what you seemed to
>>> mean.
>>>
>>>>>> When you consider our solar system and the heavy
>>>>>> elements in our bodies are from second or third generation star system
>>>>>> that went supernova it would be no surprise that there was life
>>>>>> somewhere in the universe far more advanced that we are before our
>>>>>> solar system even came into existence. After all the Universe is 14.7
>>>>>> billion years old and our solar system annd the Earth is only 4.5^9
>>>>>> years old. So there is 10.2 billion years for a designer to arise
>>>>>> and design our system. And Our universe itself might be just the
>>>>>> last in a series of previous universes. If the big bang was 14.7
>>>>>> billion years ago how many big bangs before "our" big bang?
>>>>>> s
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
***********************************
<wn64F.174756$I%1.2...@fx08.iad>
>I know far more about music than you obviously do X Y Z.
>As far as the origin of life is concern, it happens to be
>so inexplicable that some scientist say it could have
>arrived from space on a meteor or a comet or a spaceship.
>Francis Crick for example: (quote)
************************************
>As far as the origin of life is concern, it happens to be
>so inexplicable that some scientist say it could have
>arrived from space on a meteor or a comet or a spaceship.
>Francis Crick for example: (quote)
>>>> Did you not read what I wrote
>>>> below?
>>>
>>> Sure. I was just checking that what you meant is what you seemed to
>>> mean.
>>>
>>>>>> When you consider our solar system and the heavy
>>>>>> elements in our bodies are from second or third generation star system
>>>>>> that went supernova it would be no surprise that there was life
>>>>>> somewhere in the universe far more advanced that we are before our
>>>>>> solar system even came into existence. After all the Universe is 14.7
>>>>>> billion years old and our solar system annd the Earth is only 4.5^9
>>>>>> years old. So there is 10.2 billion years for a designer to arise
>>>>>> and design our system. And Our universe itself might be just the
>>>>>> last in a series of previous universes. If the big bang was 14.7
>>>>>> billion years ago how many big bangs before "our" big bang?
>>>>>> s
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
jillery
Aug 14, 2019, 10:05:03 AM8/14/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 22:53:38 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
Your personal experience and education doesn't stand up against
historical facts and logic. More to the original point, life and its
origins don't require the intervention of an intelligent tuner. That
musical ensembles tune to an agreed-upon frequency, at most suggests a
need for a similar reference, but that's provided by unguided natural
processes.
historical facts and logic. More to the original point, life and its
origins don't require the intervention of an intelligent tuner. That
musical ensembles tune to an agreed-upon frequency, at most suggests a
need for a similar reference, but that's provided by unguided natural
processes.
Ron Dean
Aug 14, 2019, 8:45:03 PM8/14/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
but your hostility towards those who have a different view from you,
deserves a response. It is not your objective or your purpose to
convince anyone of the validity of _your_ position or the error of
theirs. That's not a goal you have. You do not convince
anyone of their error by name calling such as IDiot, rubes, ignorant,
stupid, incompetent etc.. Of course, it's not your intention to try
correcting their mistakes. You have no purpose, but to bash, insult,
attack anyone who dares express a view different from yours!
RonO
Aug 14, 2019, 10:10:03 PM8/14/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
over 17 years. No IDiots have ever gotten any ID science. This isn't
just about a different view point. We are talking about basic honesty
and competence. To call it an alternate view at this time when the only
IDiots left are the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest is something
that you have to deal with. We are talking about a situation where the
IDiots with half a brain (hopefully the members of the ISCID and ID
Network qualify) quit the ID scam over a decade ago. These guys were
supposed to be the scientists and academics that supported the
creationist ID scam. Why did most of them quit? Why did IDiot
supporters like ex Senator Santorum quit the ID scam and go back to
calling what he supported plain old creationism?
I didn't call you guys IDiots until several years after the bait and
switch had been going down. It turned out that there were no honest and
competent IDiots supporting the ID scam at that time. Did you ever post
over at ARN when they had their IDiot discussion group? When the bait
and switch went down on Ohio and it was clear that the Ohio IDiots did
not get any ID science there was just abject denial. Mike Gene was the
only IDiot to comment on the situation and he just claimed that he had
given up on teaching the IDiot junk several years before. Mike Gene
went right back to supporting the ID scam and didn't quit the scam and
admit that there never was any ID science until after the IDiot loss in
Dover several years later. This was the same time that the ISCID and ID
Network was closing up shop after just about everyone went home.
There literally was not a single honest and competent IDiot supporting
the ID scam at that time. This has been true to this day, and you are
just another example of the types of IDiots that are left. IDiocy may
be an alternate viewpoint, but it is so far from any legitimate point of
view that you should be ashamed to claim it as such.
Just state what you know about the ID scam. You have 20/20 hindsight
and should be able to evaluate the situation from that perspective, but
you have never bothered to do that. What does that say about any IDiots
that are left? Just try to demonstrate that IDiocy is any type of
legitimate viewpoint as it stands today. Did you ever bother to look up
what the clergy that signed the clergy letter project had to say about
the creationist ID scam? They were all creationists themselves, but
what did they have to say about the ID scam? You may want to do that
before you state what you know about the creationist intelligent design
scam. Go for it. It is something that you should have done years ago.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Dean
Aug 14, 2019, 11:55:03 PM8/14/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
people, verbal attack and character assassination.
And never do you address the actual subject itself, ir the evidence that
is presented in support of intelligent Design. Furthermore, you do
not even attempt to justify you own _faith_ in whatever it is you
believe, or attempt to convince the truth of whatever it is you believe.
I want nothing further to do with you, unless you develop some sense
of civility, sincerity and respect. If you are incapable of this
don't bother responding. I will never again read or respond to anything
you write! The next move is yours.
jillery
Aug 15, 2019, 2:10:03 AM8/15/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 23:50:29 -0400, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.net>
wrote:
>On 8/14/2019 10:07 PM, RonO wrote:
<massive mercy snip>
It's unfortunate for both that Ron Okimoto uses words which keep you
from listening to the substance of what he says. But that substance
is substantially similar to what others say. Even using different
words, you have just as much trouble listening to them.
wrote:
>On 8/14/2019 10:07 PM, RonO wrote:
from listening to the substance of what he says. But that substance
is substantially similar to what others say. Even using different
words, you have just as much trouble listening to them.
RonO
Aug 15, 2019, 6:50:04 AM8/15/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
else for your own short comings, do what I suggested. It is something
that you should have done years ago, and you know it. Just go back and
look at the ID creationist scam with 20/20 hindsight. You should, at
least, learn what arguments have been known to be bogus for decades.
This should keep you from putting up junk like in your last ratio thread.
Why allow yourself to keep making the same mistakes as the creationists
have made in the past? Willful ignorance is not going to help you.
Ron Okimoto
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages