More attention given to chemicals that supposedly can self-organizing into life
gabriel
can only continue to claim they somehow miraculously
self-organize into life on their own.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8208307.stm
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/08/22/news-to-note-08222009#one
Astronomers have once again discovered a "building block" of life
in outer space.
Despite initial skepticism, NASA experts now believe comet
81P/Wild-2 harbors the amino acid glycine, an important component
of protein (like other amino acids). The initial discovery was
made when NASA's Stardust probe captured material ejected by the
comet in 2004.
Naturally, the discovery has fueled speculation that life on
earth began after a cometary collision. Carl Pilcher, head of the
NASA Astrobiology Institute, said, "The discovery of glycine in a
comet supports the idea that the fundamental building blocks of
life are prevalent in space, and strengthens the argument that
life in the universe may be common rather than rare."
Pardon us, but (as usual) we'd like to shower some rain on
evolutionists' parade:
NASA said the Stardust investigating team took a while to
convince itself that the glycine signature was "genuine and not
just earthly contamination," BBC News reports. Though the glycine
is of genuine extraterrestrial origin in this case, contamination
is always a worry with hyped "life from outer space" and similar
claims.
Regardless of whether the scientists are correct that the glycine
is not due to contamination, the amino acid has been found in
space before-on meteorites. What we've learned is that space
contains a range of relatively simple molecules in addition to
raw elements.
Despite Pilcher's comment that "life in the universe may be
common rather than rare," we note that evolutionists should
actually be puzzled-with billions of years and billions of
planets (and all the hype over "earth-like" planets), where is
everybody?
Although amino acids are certainly crucial to life, they fall in
the category of "necessary but not sufficient." Simply because
amino acids exist somewhere does not mean they can piece
themselves into a life-form. That has been the perennial
challenge creationists present to evolutionists-not that there
aren't any natural (including extraterrestrial) sources of such
molecules.
One of the most important things to remember is that an amino
acid, while a building block of life, is more like a building
block of a building block of a building block of life. Metals,
too, exist independently in nature, but we do not expect
sophisticated machinery to exist independent of a designer.
Likewise, discoveries of amino acids in space merely bring us
back to the question of how such chemicals could have
self-organized into life.
============================================================
Scientists have identified one of the fundamental chemical
buildings blocks of life in a comet for the first time, the US
space agency (Nasa) reports.
Glycine is an amino acid found in proteins, the sophisticated
molecules that organisms use to build and maintain their systems.
It was detected in the material ejected from Comet Wild-2 in 2004
and grabbed by Nasa's Stardust probe.
The idea that life was "seeded" on the early Earth by comets is a
popular one.
Many scientists hold to the theory that billions of years ago, a
bombardment by these mountainous balls of ice and rock brought
important chemical precursors for life to our planet.
Somehow evolution was kick-started from this primordial "soup",
they believe.
"The discovery of glycine in a comet supports the idea that the
fundamental building blocks of life are prevalent in space, and
strengthens the argument that life in the Universe may be common
rather than rare," commented Dr Carl Pilcher, who leads Nasa's
Astrobiology Institute.
Glycine has been detected in meteorites before and there are also
observations in interstellar gas clouds claimed for telescopes,
but the Stardust find is described as a first in cometary
material.
The Nasa spacecraft flew past the 5km-wide icy Comet 81P/Wild-2
in January 2004.
The probe swept up particles fizzing off the object's surface as
it passed some 240km (149 miles) from the comet's core, or
nucleus. These tiny grains, just a few thousandths or a
millimetre in size, were then returned to Earth in 2006 in a
sealed capsule.
Distributed among the world's leading astro-labs, the specimens
have since been giving researchers a remarkable insight into the
conditions that must have existed in the earliest phases of the
Solar System when planets and comets were forming.
Nasa said in a statement that it took sometime for the
investigating team, led by Dr Jamie Elsila, to convince itself
that the glycine signature found in Stardust's sample bay was
genuine and not just Earthly contamination.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>Too bad they can't actually create life with these chemicals, but
>can only continue to claim they somehow miraculously
>self-organize into life on their own.
Wise people don't worship their own arguments, particularly arguments
that have been shown to be false. You have demonstrated here that you
are not a wise person.
>news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8208307.stm
>
>www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/08/22/news-to-note-08222009#one
Ken Ham is still a confidence man and tells lies for a living. Do you
really want to keep quoting his lies?
Stop worshipping ignorance and lies. You make your god look bad every
time you post your falsehoods.
--
Here is what Jesus said would happen to those who are intentionally
ignorant:
"Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten
talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an
abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from
him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where
there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Pastor Dave
>Too bad they can't actually create life with these chemicals
Too bad you put out so much good information
and yet, are such a dishonest person.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
The greatest Bible software out there is found at:
Two of the greatest Windows utilities ever made!
WindowsXP/Vista/7, 32/64 bit (replaces XP ver):
CacheMan7 Single: http://cac71.notlong.com
CacheMan7 Two : http://cac72.notlong.com
StartEd Pro : http://started.notlong.com
"Wisdom is in the sight of him who has understanding,
but the eyes of a fool are on the ends of the earth."
- Proverbs 17:24
Bob LeChevalier
>Too bad they can't actually create life with these chemicals,
That'll happen eventually.
> but can only continue to claim they somehow miraculously
>self-organize into life on their own.
That has been observed, a multitude of times.
Every time a cell replicates, a bunch of chemicals "self-organize"
into life on their own, following only the laws of chemistry.
>Despite initial skepticism, NASA experts now believe comet
>81P/Wild-2 harbors the amino acid glycine, an important component
>of protein (like other amino acids). The initial discovery was
>made when NASA's Stardust probe captured material ejected by the
>comet in 2004.
>
>Naturally, the discovery has fueled speculation that life on
>earth began after a cometary collision.
Note the word "speculation". This is neither a theory, nor even a
hypothesis. Merely an idea worth considering.
>Carl Pilcher, head of the
>NASA Astrobiology Institute, said, "The discovery of glycine in a
>comet supports the idea that the fundamental building blocks of
>life are prevalent in space, and strengthens the argument that
>life in the universe may be common rather than rare."
All true statements.
>Pardon us, but (as usual) we'd like to shower some rain on
>evolutionists' parade:
You couldn't possibly do so. You are too ignorant.
>NASA said the Stardust investigating team took a while to
>convince itself that the glycine signature was "genuine and not
>just earthly contamination," BBC News reports.
Scientists check their work carefully.
>Regardless of whether the scientists are correct that the glycine
>is not due to contamination, the amino acid has been found in
>space before-on meteorites.
So?
>What we've learned is that space
>contains a range of relatively simple molecules in addition to
>raw elements.
Amino acids are NOT all that simple. Once you get to the complexity
of amino acids, you are but one step away from proteins.
>Despite Pilcher's comment that "life in the universe may be
>common rather than rare," we note that evolutionists should
>actually be puzzled-with billions of years and billions of
>planets (and all the hype over "earth-like" planets), where is
>everybody?
Considering that we have only managed to detect planets within the
past couple of decades, and relatively few of those planets are
anywhere close to "earthlike", we have at least a couple of orders of
magnitude more refinement before we can determine if there is life on
those planets.
>Although amino acids are certainly crucial to life, they fall in
>the category of "necessary but not sufficient."
Of course.
>Simply because
>amino acids exist somewhere does not mean they can piece
>themselves into a life-form.
But of course they can - when RNA or DNA is present. And RNA is not
really any more complex than amino acids.
>One of the most important things to remember is that an amino
>acid, while a building block of life, is more like a building
>block of a building block of a building block of life. Metals,
>too, exist independently in nature, but we do not expect
>sophisticated machinery to exist independent of a designer.
>Likewise, discoveries of amino acids in space merely bring us
>back to the question of how such chemicals could have
>self-organized into life.
Trivially, as happens every time a new cell forms.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >Too bad they can't actually create life with these chemicals,
:
: That'll happen eventually.
:
: > but can only continue to claim they somehow miraculously
: >self-organize into life on their own.
:
: That has been observed, a multitude of times.
Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
chemicals self-organizing into life.
:
: Every time a cell replicates, a bunch of chemicals "self-organize"
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 21:26:54 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >Too bad they can't actually create life with these chemicals,
>:
>: That'll happen eventually.
>:
>: > but can only continue to claim they somehow miraculously
>: >self-organize into life on their own.
>:
>: That has been observed, a multitude of times.
>
>Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
>chemicals self-organizing into life.
Read any paper, or elementary biological textbook for that matter,
that discusses cell replication. There are thousands of them. The
process occurs millions of times each day in your body.
Every cell that lives had to start by chemicals self-organizing. The
most important of those chemicals these days is DNA.
Note that this has NOTHING to do with the fact of evolution or the
theory of evolution, beyond the fact that sometimes, cell replication
produces uncorrected errors (called "mutations")
Nor does your question refer to hypotheses of abiogenisis, which
refers to the origin of the earliest life forms. That also has
nothing to do with evolution, which only refers to what happened AFTER
there came to be replicating life forms.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 21:26:54 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: >
: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: >Too bad they can't actually create life with these chemicals,
: >:
: >: That'll happen eventually.
: >:
: >: > but can only continue to claim they somehow miraculously
: >: >self-organize into life on their own.
: >:
: >: That has been observed, a multitude of times.
: >
: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
:
: Read any paper, or elementary biological textbook for that matter,
: that discusses cell replication.
No, that's starting with a cell already existing. Either you have
been caught in your dishonesty, or you are quite ignorant of what
it means to have lifeless chemicals self-organize into life.
Again, please link a site that offers the scientific paper
showing what you claim has been observed a multitude of times:
chemicals self-organizing into life.
: There are thousands of them. The
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 04:47:40 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 21:26:54 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>: >
>: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >: >Too bad they can't actually create life with these chemicals,
>: >:
>: >: That'll happen eventually.
>: >:
>: >: > but can only continue to claim they somehow miraculously
>: >: >self-organize into life on their own.
>: >:
>: >: That has been observed, a multitude of times.
>: >
>: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
>: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
>:
>: Read any paper, or elementary biological textbook for that matter,
>: that discusses cell replication.
>
>No, that's starting with a cell already existing. Either you have
>been caught in your dishonesty, or you are quite ignorant of what
>it means to have lifeless chemicals self-organize into life.
>
>Again, please link a site that offers the scientific paper
>showing what you claim has been observed a multitude of times:
>chemicals self-organizing into life.
What does organize chemicals as they are brought into a growing plant or
animal?
Jeffrey Turner
Organic Chemicals Union, local 27?
--Jeff
--
The comfort of the wealthy has always
depended upon an abundant supply of
the poor. --Voltaire
Ken
> > What does organize chemicals as they are brought into a growing plant or
> > animal?
>
> Organic Chemicals Union, local 27?
>
> --Jeff
Or perhaps the American Chemical Society?
Bob LeChevalier
>: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
>: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
>:
>: Read any paper, or elementary biological textbook for that matter,
>: that discusses cell replication.
>
>No, that's starting with a cell already existing.
A cell is merely a collection of chemicals that has self-organized.
Andrew
> gabriel wrote:
>>: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
>>: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
>>:
>>: Read any paper, or elementary biological textbook for that matter,
>>: that discusses cell replication.
>>
>>No, that's starting with a cell already existing.
>
> A cell is merely a collection of chemicals that has self-organized.
That's like saying that your computer is merely a collection
of chemicals that has "self-organized". And your foolish
statement is yet more evidence that the Bible was correct
when declaring that...
"The fool has said in his heart, There is no God."
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Andrew, you are being silly, even by your normal responses. I realize
that you worship your own ignorance and believe that God wants you to
know nothing, but I really don't see how you manage to get your clothing
on with this attitude.
You mock the god you claim to worship. You are lucky. That god does not
exist.
Ralph
Nothing at all like that, Andrew. How stupid are you anyway?
>
> "The fool has said in his heart, There is no God."
>
>
>
Gee, I believe the fool was right.
Andrew
>>"The fool has said in his heart, There is no God."
>>
> Gee, I believe the fool was right.
Yet you acknowledge that he was indeed
a fool, and also all who foolishly say,
"There is no God."
Ralph
I acknowledge that what the fool said is correct, there is no god!
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Ralph" wrote in message news:CLOdnc8bIq8rywHX...@giganews.com...
The wise man notes that all claims about gods are unsupported by any
evidence. They don't have to hide their conclusion that there is no God.
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Ralph" wrote:
>>"The fool has said in his heart, There is no God."
>>>
>>> Gee, I believe the fool was right.
>>
>> Yet you acknowledge that he was indeed
>> a fool, and also all who foolishly say,
>> "There is no God."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> I acknowledge that what the fool said is correct, there is no god!
You again acknowledge that he was a fool.
I agree with you.
He was indeed "a fool."
gabriel
: "Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message news:0s7n95l728qeuv7uc...@4ax.com...
: > gabriel wrote:
: >>: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
: >>: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
: >>:
: >>: Read any paper, or elementary biological textbook for that matter,
: >>: that discusses cell replication.
: >>
: >>No, that's starting with a cell already existing.
: >
: > A cell is merely a collection of chemicals that has self-organized.
:
: That's like saying that your computer is merely a collection
: of chemicals that has "self-organized".
Exactly. Only shows how their version of "science" is to just
make up whatever statement they wish, and suddenly it must be
true because they claim it.
A cell makes our most complex factories look like a tinker toy,
not to mention that factory would have to work on its own with no
human invention, being "alive" and doing all the countless things
the systems within does just to remain alive, and be able to
build other factories just like it - all on its own - i.e., it's
alive. All created "merely" by chemicals that "self organized". A
cell is as complex microscopically as the entire universe is to
us. "Merely" self-organized chemicals indeed. =)
No one would believe, as you point out, that a computer is
"merely" a collection of chemicals or any other materials that
had "self-organized" - but they'd deny that selfsame logic to
believe it to be true about something that's almost infinitely
more complex than a computer. Only shows you how people stop
thinking when it comes to the belief that the universe, all
biological diversity of life, or even a single cell "just
happened" over time.
: And your foolish
:
:
Devils Advocaat
> "Bob LeChevalier" wrote in messagenews:0s7n95l728qeuv7uc...@4ax.com...
> > gabriel wrote:
> >>: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
> >>: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
> >>:
> >>: Read any paper, or elementary biological textbook for that matter,
> >>: that discusses cell replication.
>
> >>No, that's starting with a cell already existing.
>
> > A cell is merely a collection of chemicals that has self-organized.
>
> That's like saying that your computer is merely a collection
> of chemicals that has "self-organized".
That is totally false, as you well know.
> And your foolish
> statement is yet more evidence that the Bible was correct
> when declaring that...
>
> "The fool has said in his heart, There is no God."
And your statement about computers being "self-organized" is a sign of
your own foolishness.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:07:21 -0700, "Andrew"
><andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>: "Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message news:0s7n95l728qeuv7uc...@4ax.com...
>: > gabriel wrote:
>: >>: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
>: >>: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
>: >>:
>: >>: Read any paper, or elementary biological textbook for that matter,
>: >>: that discusses cell replication.
>: >>
>: >>No, that's starting with a cell already existing.
>: >
>: > A cell is merely a collection of chemicals that has self-organized.
>:
>: That's like saying that your computer is merely a collection
>: of chemicals that has "self-organized".
>
>Exactly. Only shows how their version of "science" is to just
>make up whatever statement they wish, and suddenly it must be
>true because they claim it.
Then you are exactly wrong, Gabriel.
>A cell makes our most complex factories look like a tinker toy,
Not really.
>not to mention that factory would have to work on its own with no
>human invention, being "alive" and doing all the countless things
>the systems within does just to remain alive, and be able to
>build other factories just like it - all on its own - i.e., it's
>alive. All created "merely" by chemicals that "self organized". A
>cell is as complex microscopically as the entire universe is to
>us. "Merely" self-organized chemicals indeed. =)
No scientist claims that life is simple. What they do state is that
nothing about life is chemically impossible. If you think you have an
objection to self-organization, name it.
>No one would believe, as you point out, that a computer is
>"merely" a collection of chemicals or any other materials that
>had "self-organized" -
You and Andrew can use that silly and erroneous analogy all you like,
but you won't persuade anyone that you know what you are talking about
by doing so.
>but they'd deny that selfsame logic to
>believe it to be true about something that's almost infinitely
>more complex than a computer. Only shows you how people stop
>thinking when it comes to the belief that the universe, all
>biological diversity of life, or even a single cell "just
>happened" over time.
But cells are not "almost infinitely more complex" than computers.
You really should start to learn about the world around you, the
universe that you claim God created is far more wonderful than you ever
give God credit for.
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
> : "Bob LeChevalier" wrote:
> : >
> : > A cell is merely a collection of chemicals that has self-organized.
> :
> : That's like saying that your computer is merely
> : a collection of chemicals that has "self-organized."
>
> Exactly. Only shows how their version of "science" is to just
> make up whatever statement they wish, and suddenly it must be
> true because they claim it.
>
> A cell makes our most complex factories look like a tinker toy,
> not to mention that factory would have to work on its own with no
> human invention, being "alive" and doing all the countless things
> the systems within does just to remain alive, and be able to
> build other factories just like it - all on its own
Here is a little picture of this living complexity inside the cell.
> - i.e., it's alive. All created "merely" by chemicals that "self organized".
> A cell is as complex microscopically as the entire universe is to
> us. "Merely" self-organized chemicals indeed. =)
>
> No one would believe, as you point out, that a computer is
> "merely" a collection of chemicals or any other materials that
> had "self-organized" - but they'd deny that selfsame logic to
> believe it to be true about something that's almost infinitely
> more complex than a computer. Only shows you how people stop
> thinking when it comes to the belief that the universe, all
> biological diversity of life, or even a single cell "just
> happened" over time.
Well said.
Dan Listermann
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:-b6dnbNyh6AIyADX...@earthlink.com...
> "gabriel" wrote in message
> news:s6tp959ovhj8g8bq4...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>> : "Bob LeChevalier" wrote:
>> : >
>> : > A cell is merely a collection of chemicals that has self-organized.
>> :
>> : That's like saying that your computer is merely
>> : a collection of chemicals that has "self-organized."
>>
>> Exactly. Only shows how their version of "science" is to just
>> make up whatever statement they wish, and suddenly it must be
>> true because they claim it.
>>
>> A cell makes our most complex factories look like a tinker toy,
>> not to mention that factory would have to work on its own with no
>> human invention, being "alive" and doing all the countless things
>> the systems within does just to remain alive, and be able to
>> build other factories just like it - all on its own
>
> Here is a little picture of this living complexity inside the cell.
>
> http://micurl.com/raktA
>
Do you know the definition of "life?"
Ralph
Still he couldn't have been all foolish because he said that your god
didn't exist and he hit the nail with that one. The only foolish thing I
can think of is wasting your life on an imaginary god.
Bob LeChevalier
>"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message news:0s7n95l728qeuv7uc...@4ax.com...
>> gabriel wrote:
>>>: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
>>>: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
>>>:
>>>: Read any paper, or elementary biological textbook for that matter,
>>>: that discusses cell replication.
>>>
>>>No, that's starting with a cell already existing.
>>
>> A cell is merely a collection of chemicals that has self-organized.
>
>That's like saying that your computer is merely a collection
>of chemicals that has "self-organized".
No. It takes human intervention to build a computer. It takes
nothing external to a cell, other than chemical resources, to make a
cell.
>And your foolish
>statement is yet more evidence that the Bible was correct
>when declaring that...
>
> "The fool has said in his heart, There is no God."
How is that relevant. There is a God, and He is probably laughing at
you in your studied ignorance, which He does not approve of.
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Ralph" wrote:
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> "Ralph" wrote:
>>>> "The fool has said in his heart, There is no God."
>>>>> Gee, I believe the fool was right.
>>>> Yet you acknowledge that he was indeed
>>>> a fool, and also all who foolishly say,
>>>> "There is no God."
>>>
>>> I acknowledge that what the fool said is correct, there is no god!
>>
>> You again acknowledge that he was a fool.
>>
>> I agree with you.
>>
>> He was indeed "a fool."
>>
> Still he couldn't have been all foolish because he said that
> your god didn't exist and he hit the nail with that one.
So you agree with the fool.
> The only foolish thing I can think of is wasting your life on an
> imaginary god.
That's why you need to learn of the real God who is the Maker
of heaven and earth. Until you do, your short life will be in vain.
Andrew
Yes, and it is the functioning sum of all parts together which make
it alive. The parts (of the cell) have no function or purpose apart
from their place inside the cell, therefore we may say that the cell
is irreducibly complex which shows that its initial origin was thru
intelligent causation.
Andrew
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Ralph" wrote in message news:8tSdncRCu7mbGgDX...@giganews.com...
Andrew, another vain fool who imagines that the God he created is a true
God.
Juan M
> That's why you need to learn of the real God who is the Maker
> of heaven and earth. Until you do, your short life will be in vain.
>
Gospel: "Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is."
Not merely tolerant of it, but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for
many religions; but no religion is great enough or divine enough to add that
new law to its code.
- Mark Twain, a Biography
We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside
the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange
inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the
things which are holy to us.
- Following the Equator
Juan M
More people are killed by water than by any other chemical, but we still
can't live without it.
Devils Advocaat
> "Dan Listermann" wrote in messagenews:928b2$4a9d708b$4a53bf9f$28...@FUSE.NET...
> > "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote in messagenews:-b6dnbNyh6AIyADX...@earthlink.com...
> >> "gabriel" wrote in messagenews:s6tp959ovhj8g8bq4...@4ax.com...
> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>> : "Bob LeChevalier" wrote:
> >>> : >
> >>> : > A cell is merely a collection of chemicals that has self-organized.
> >>> :
> >>> : That's like saying that your computer is merely
> >>> : a collection of chemicals that has "self-organized."
>
> >>> Exactly. Only shows how their version of "science" is to just
> >>> make up whatever statement they wish, and suddenly it must be
> >>> true because they claim it.
>
> >>> A cell makes our most complex factories look like a tinker toy,
> >>> not to mention that factory would have to work on its own with no
> >>> human invention, being "alive" and doing all the countless things
> >>> the systems within does just to remain alive, and be able to
> >>> build other factories just like it - all on its own
>
> >> Here is a little picture of this living complexity inside the cell.
>
> >> http://micurl.com/raktA
>
> > Do you know the definition of "life?"
>
> Yes, and it is the functioning sum of all parts together which make
> it alive. The parts (of the cell) have no function or purpose apart
> from their place inside the cell, therefore we may say that the cell
> is irreducibly complex which shows that its initial origin was thru
> intelligent causation.
>
> Andrew
You haven't answered the question.
Dan Listermann
life.
Ralph
There is no real god! Only imagined ones. As long as you want to waste
your short life you go right ahead and worship your imaginary friend.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
: >: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
: >:
: >: Read any paper, or elementary biological textbook for that matter,
: >: that discusses cell replication.
: >
: >No, that's starting with a cell already existing.
:
: A cell is merely a collection of chemicals that has self-organized.
You've been caught in your lie.
Show an observation or test/verification of chemicals that
self-organized into a cell, not an already existing cell
replicating another cell.
:
: lojbab
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:48:01 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
>: >: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
>: >:
>: >: Read any paper, or elementary biological textbook for that matter,
>: >: that discusses cell replication.
>: >
>: >No, that's starting with a cell already existing.
>:
>: A cell is merely a collection of chemicals that has self-organized.
>
>You've been caught in your lie.
>Show an observation or test/verification of chemicals that
>self-organized into a cell, not an already existing cell
>replicating another cell.
Why? What do you think is magical about that? Life is just another
self-sustaining chemical reaction.
Bob LeChevalier
>Show an observation or test/verification of chemicals that
>self-organized into a cell, not an already existing cell
>replicating another cell.
An existing cell is a bunch of chemicals. Changing the goal posts
doesn't negate the fact that every cell that forms is self-organized
by a bunch of chemicals including a DNA template.
Andrew
> gabriel wrote:
>>Show an observation or test/verification of chemicals that
>>self-organized into a cell, not an already existing cell
>>replicating another cell.
>
> An existing cell is a bunch of chemicals. Changing the goal posts
> doesn't negate the fact that every cell that forms is self-organized
Cells are self organized by nano factories and machines that are
directed by intelligent code. This is a fact of molecular biology.
Chemicals are involved even as they are basically involved in in-
telligently engineered computer programs on a disk. To refer to
either one as a merely a "bunch of chemicals" shows disrespect
for their intelligent origin and an ignorance as to their complexity.
Andrew
Andrew
> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> : gabriel wrote:
> : >:
> : >: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
> : >: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
> : >:
> : >: Read any paper, or elementary biological textbook for that matter,
> : >: that discusses cell replication.
> : >
> : >No, that's starting with a cell already existing.
> :
> : A cell is merely a collection of chemicals that has self-organized.
>
> You've been caught in your lie.
> Show an observation or test/verification of chemicals that
> self-organized into a cell, not an already existing cell
> replicating another cell.
Such observation exists only in the fantasies of evolutionists.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message news:olu1a59rgfh3lv45u...@4ax.com...
>> gabriel wrote:
>>>Show an observation or test/verification of chemicals that
>>>self-organized into a cell, not an already existing cell
>>>replicating another cell.
>>
>> An existing cell is a bunch of chemicals. Changing the goal posts
>> doesn't negate the fact that every cell that forms is self-organized
>> by a a bunch of chemicalsincluding a DNA template.
>
>Cells are self organized by nano factories
no.
>and machines that are directed by intelligent code.
no
>This is a fact of molecular biology.
no
>Chemicals are involved even as they are basically involved in in-
>telligently engineered computer programs on a disk.
no
>To refer to
>either one as a merely a "bunch of chemicals" shows disrespect
>for their intelligent origin and an ignorance as to their complexity.
no
Andrew, as long as you refuse to learn anything about biology or
chemistry, you will be making false claims.
Bob LeChevalier
There is no evidence of any intelligence in the DNA code, which is
actually quite simple, having only 4 "letters".
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >Show an observation or test/verification of chemicals that
: >self-organized into a cell, not an already existing cell
: >replicating another cell.
:
: An existing cell is a bunch of chemicals.
You're providing great examples to all the lurkers how dishonest
evolutionists are to claim they've observed "chemicals self
organizing into life - a cell."
Show an observation or test/verification of separate chemicals
that are not already a cell coming together and self-organizing
into a cell.
: Changing the goal posts
gabriel
<andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
: "gabriel" wrote in message news:s6tp959ovhj8g8bq4...@4ax.com...
: > "Andrew" wrote:
: > : "Bob LeChevalier" wrote:
: > : >
: > : > A cell is merely a collection of chemicals that has self-organized.
: > :
: > : That's like saying that your computer is merely
: > : a collection of chemicals that has "self-organized."
: >
: > Exactly. Only shows how their version of "science" is to just
: > make up whatever statement they wish, and suddenly it must be
: > true because they claim it.
: >
: > A cell makes our most complex factories look like a tinker toy,
: > not to mention that factory would have to work on its own with no
: > human invention, being "alive" and doing all the countless things
: > the systems within does just to remain alive, and be able to
: > build other factories just like it - all on its own
:
: Here is a little picture of this living complexity inside the cell.
:
: http://micurl.com/raktA
Many atheist scientists who have seen how complex a single cell
is have come to the truth that there is a creator. Thanks for the
link.
:
:
: > - i.e., it's alive. All created "merely" by chemicals that "self organized".
:
:
gabriel
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: On 31 Aug, 23:07, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
: > "Bob LeChevalier" wrote in messagenews:0s7n95l728qeuv7uc...@4ax.com...
: > > gabriel wrote:
: > >>: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
: > >>: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
: > >>:
: > >>: Read any paper, or elementary biological textbook for that matter,
: > >>: that discusses cell replication.
: >
: > >>No, that's starting with a cell already existing.
: >
: > > A cell is merely a collection of chemicals that has self-organized.
: >
: > That's like saying that your computer is merely a collection
: > of chemicals that has "self-organized". �
:
: That is totally false, as you well know.
So you think a computer, which is a tinker toy by comparison to
the organization and complexity of a cell, could just
self-organize on its own?
:
: > And your foolish
VoiceOfReason
gabriel wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:10:44 -0700, "Andrew"
> <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
> : "gabriel" wrote in message news:s6tp959ovhj8g8bq4...@4ax.com...
> : > "Andrew" wrote:
> : > : "Bob LeChevalier" wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : > A cell is merely a collection of chemicals that has self-organized.
> : > :
> : > : That's like saying that your computer is merely
> : > : a collection of chemicals that has "self-organized."
> : >
> : > Exactly. Only shows how their version of "science" is to just
> : > make up whatever statement they wish, and suddenly it must be
> : > true because they claim it.
> : >
> : > A cell makes our most complex factories look like a tinker toy,
> : > not to mention that factory would have to work on its own with no
> : > human invention, being "alive" and doing all the countless things
> : > the systems within does just to remain alive, and be able to
> : > build other factories just like it - all on its own
> :
> : Here is a little picture of this living complexity inside the cell.
> :
> : http://micurl.com/raktA
>
> Many atheist scientists who have seen how complex a single cell
> is have come to the truth that there is a creator. Thanks for the
> link.
Cite?
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
: >"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message news:0s7n95l728qeuv7uc...@4ax.com...
: >> gabriel wrote:
: >>>: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
: >>>: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
: >>>:
: >>>: Read any paper, or elementary biological textbook for that matter,
: >>>: that discusses cell replication.
: >>>
: >>>No, that's starting with a cell already existing.
: >>
: >> A cell is merely a collection of chemicals that has self-organized.
: >
: >That's like saying that your computer is merely a collection
: >of chemicals that has "self-organized".
:
: No. It takes human intervention to build a computer. It takes
: nothing external to a cell, other than chemical resources, to make a
: cell.
A bold belief - one that defies all logic, since a computer is a
tinker toy compared to the amazing complexity of a single cell,
yet you'd never be "stupid" enough to believe a computer could
ever "just happen" even if a trillion years went by with all the
materials for it left next to each other in neat piles.
Yet you'd believe a cell, amazingly more complex than our most
advanced computers, will "just happen" to self-organize. When you
can back up this claim with an observation and/or
test/verification showing this happening, please post it. Until
then, good luck with that logic-defying belief.
:
: >And your foolish
Juan M
We are a cosmic experiment.
Of course, Earth is just the control group.
That explains everything, does it not?
:<)
Ralph
You, who is ignorant of science, has no room to speak.
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
LOL!
Devils Advocaat
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 05:06:21 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
>
> : On 31 Aug, 23:07, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> : > "Bob LeChevalier" wrote in messagenews:0s7n95l728qeuv7uc...@4ax.com...
> : > > gabriel wrote:
> : > >>: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
> : > >>: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
> : > >>:
> : > >>: Read any paper, or elementary biological textbook for that matter,
> : > >>: that discusses cell replication.
> : >
> : > >>No, that's starting with a cell already existing.
> : >
> : > > A cell is merely a collection of chemicals that has self-organized.
> : >
> : > That's like saying that your computer is merely a collection
> : > of chemicals that has "self-organized".
> :
> : That is totally false, as you well know.
>
> So you think a computer, which is a tinker toy by comparison to
> the organization and complexity of a cell, could just
> self-organize on its own?
Of course not, your buddy Andrew is the one that made the assertion
that a computer is merely a collection of chemicals that has "self-
organised".
>
> :
Bob LeChevalier
>: > That's like saying that your computer is merely a collection
>: > of chemicals that has "self-organized". �
>:
>: That is totally false, as you well know.
>
>So you think a computer, which is a tinker toy by comparison to
>the organization and complexity of a cell,
Your evidence is lacking.
Prove that a cell is NECESSARILY more complex than a computer.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 06:22:28 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>: >That's like saying that your computer is merely a collection
>: >of chemicals that has "self-organized".
>:
>: No. It takes human intervention to build a computer. It takes
>: nothing external to a cell, other than chemical resources, to make a
>: cell.
>
>A bold belief
No belief is involved.
>one that defies all logic,
Logic is irrelevant to the question. Logical reasoning is only as
good as the assumptions you start from, and you are starting from the
wrong assumptions. But there is no evidence in your posts that you
have the slightest idea what a logical argument is.
>since a computer is a tinker toy compared to the amazing complexity of a single cell,
Prove it.
>yet you'd never be "stupid" enough to believe a computer could
>ever "just happen" even if a trillion years went by with all the
>materials for it left next to each other in neat piles.
I wouldn't expect a modern cell to "just happen" if you left the
materials next to each other in neat piles.
The first living cell would have been MUCH simpler than most modern
cells, probably closer in complexity to a virus. And viruses are not
all that complex.
>Yet you'd believe a cell, amazingly more complex than our most
>advanced computers, will "just happen" to self-organize.
I don't need to believe it.
>When you can back up this claim with an observation and/or
>test/verification showing this happening, please post it.
If we had such an observation, then abiogenesis would not be merely a
hypothesis.
>Until then, good luck with that logic-defying belief.
Logic has nothing to do with the subject. "Amazing" and "complexity"
are NOT "logical concepts. Indeed nothing you have written has any
logical component.
Bob LeChevalier
>Show an observation or test/verification of separate chemicals
>that are not already a cell coming together and self-organizing
>into a cell.
Why should I? It has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
gabriel
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: On 5 Sep, 19:42, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 05:06:21 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
: >
: > <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: >
: > : On 31 Aug, 23:07, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
: > : > "Bob LeChevalier" wrote in messagenews:0s7n95l728qeuv7uc...@4ax.com...
: > : > > gabriel wrote:
: > : > >>: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
: > : > >>: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
: > : > >>:
: > : > >>: Read any paper, or elementary biological textbook for that matter,
: > : > >>: that discusses cell replication.
: > : >
: > : > >>No, that's starting with a cell already existing.
: > : >
: > : > > A cell is merely a collection of chemicals that has self-organized.
: > : >
: > : > That's like saying that your computer is merely a collection
: > : > of chemicals that has "self-organized". �
: > :
: > : That is totally false, as you well know.
: >
: > So you think a computer, which is a tinker toy by comparison to
: > the organization and complexity of a cell, could just
: > self-organize on its own?
:
: Of course not, your buddy Andrew is the one that made the assertion
: that a computer is merely a collection of chemicals that has "self-
: organised".
And it's just as silly to claim a cell is "just a collection of
chemicals that self-organized" as it is to claim a computer is
"just a collection of [insert materials here] that has
self-organized" - a cell makes a computer look like a joke by
comparison.
: >
: > :
: > : > And your foolish
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: > That's like saying that your computer is merely a collection
: >: > of chemicals that has "self-organized". �
: >:
: >: That is totally false, as you well know.
: >
: >So you think a computer, which is a tinker toy by comparison to
: >the organization and complexity of a cell,
:
: Your evidence is lacking.
:
: Prove that a cell is NECESSARILY more complex than a computer.
You seem to be claiming it's not. Prove that a cell is not
necessarily more complex than a computer.
Meanwhile there's more meaningfully encoded information in a
single cell than the entire Encyclopedia Britannica, along with
the ability for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon. And
it's alive, acting of its own volition. And it can replicate
itself. And it can adapt.
It's not the evidence that's lacking, but instead a person's
inability to accept the obvious.
:
: lojbab
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Hypotheses are created to explain an observation. The belief that
a single cell (i.e., life itself) can self-organize from mere
chemicals is not observable, not testable and not verifiable -
i.e., not science.
You're free to cite the observation of lifeless chemicals
self-organizing into the unfathomable organization, complexity
and life itself we see in a single cell. The truth is such a
thing has never been observed and is not testable/verifiable -
one can only believe in it. You would be lying to say otherwise.
:
: >Until then, good luck with that logic-defying belief.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 13:30:43 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
You have demonstrated here that you neither understand biology nor
computer engineering.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:35:22 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >: > That's like saying that your computer is merely a collection
>: >: > of chemicals that has "self-organized". �
>: >:
>: >: That is totally false, as you well know.
>: >
>: >So you think a computer, which is a tinker toy by comparison to
>: >the organization and complexity of a cell,
>:
>: Your evidence is lacking.
>:
>: Prove that a cell is NECESSARILY more complex than a computer.
>
>You seem to be claiming it's not. Prove that a cell is not
>necessarily more complex than a computer.
You made the assertions without explaining why. Where is your evidence?
>Meanwhile there's more meaningfully encoded information in a
>single cell than the entire Encyclopedia Britannica, along with
>the ability for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon. And
>it's alive, acting of its own volition. And it can replicate
>itself. And it can adapt.
So you claim. Show us the evidence.
>It's not the evidence that's lacking, but instead a person's
>inability to accept the obvious.
If it were so obvious, you would have no problem at all providing
evidence.
Devils Advocaat
> On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 13:30:43 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
I wonder if you have much understanding of either computers or
biochemistry.
Bob LeChevalier
>: Of course not, your buddy Andrew is the one that made the assertion
>: that a computer is merely a collection of chemicals that has "self-
>: organised".
>
>And it's just as silly to claim a cell is "just a collection of
>chemicals that self-organized" as it is to claim a computer is
>"just a collection of [insert materials here] that has
>self-organized" - a cell makes a computer look like a joke by
>comparison.
How would YOU know?
Bob LeChevalier
>On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:35:22 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >: > That's like saying that your computer is merely a collection
>: >: > of chemicals that has "self-organized". �
>: >:
>: >: That is totally false, as you well know.
>: >
>: >So you think a computer, which is a tinker toy by comparison to
>: >the organization and complexity of a cell,
>:
>: Your evidence is lacking.
>:
>: Prove that a cell is NECESSARILY more complex than a computer.
>
>You seem to be claiming it's not. Prove that a cell is not
>necessarily more complex than a computer.
Prove that it is.
>Meanwhile there's more meaningfully encoded information in a
>single cell than the entire Encyclopedia Britannica,
In some cells perhaps. But not in all cells.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-smallest-genomes.htm
<Some organisms have truly tiny genomes, the smallest genomes yet
< discovered. For instance, Candidatus Carsonella rudii, also known as
< C. rudii, has the smallest non-viral genome in nature, at just
< 159,662 base pairs, with approximately 182 genes.
<...
<But the smallest genome out of any free-living organism can be found
< in the bacteria Mycoplasma genitalium, which is found on the
< respiratory tracts and genitals of primates, such as humans. This
< bacterium was first isolated in 1980 from urethral specimens of two
< male paints with inflammation of the urethra. Thought to be first
< among the smallest genomes under the discovery of C. rudii in 2002,
< M. gentalium has only 582,970 base pairs and 482 protein-coding
< genes. M. genitalium has been used as a model for the Minimal Genome
< Project, which seeks to create a bacterium with the minimum genome
< necessary to sustain life.
600,000 base pairs with 4 possible letters at each position.
Mathematically equivalent to 300,000 base "pairs of pairs" with 16
possible letter-pairs in each position. That would be somewhat less
if there were 26 possible letters.
A typical novel is 50,000-100,000 words, so the genome of the simplest
self-sufficient cells is less complex than a novel.
And a Pentium 4 microcomputer has 55 million transistors (which are
themselves more complex than a single base pair of DNA). So your
statements about relative complexity of a computer and a cell are
rather suspect. (And the typical desktop computer contains a lot more
than just the microcomputer).
>along with
>the ability for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon. And
>it's alive, acting of its own volition.
"Volition" is not a proper description for how a cell acts. It refers
to making decisions or choices, which as most people understand the
concept requires at least a brain.
But then, we have you as an example, so maybe you are right.
>And it can replicate itself.
So?
>And it can adapt.
Most individual cells have rather limited ability to adapt. Indeed,
most cells other than single-celled lifeforms cannot survive very long
by themselves or adapt.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:43:06 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>: I don't need to believe it.
>:
>: >When you can back up this claim with an observation and/or
>: >test/verification showing this happening, please post it.
>:
>: If we had such an observation, then abiogenesis would not be merely a
>: hypothesis.
>
>Hypotheses are created to explain an observation.
Usually.
>The belief that
>a single cell (i.e., life itself) can self-organize from mere
>chemicals is not observable, not testable and not verifiable -
"belief" might not be.
On the other hand, a hypothesis that such a thing happens by some
specific process or another (the explanation part) can indeed be
tested by replicating that process. That by itself would not be proof
that it DID happen in that way, and further evidence would be sought
to support the hypothesis.
>You're free to cite the observation of lifeless chemicals
>self-organizing into the unfathomable organization, complexity
>and life itself we see in a single cell.
It happens as part of every cell replication.
There is no especial reason why to formation of any initial life form
would necessarily be much simpler than the replication of the simplest
cells alive today.
We already know that chemicals as complex as amino acids can be formed
in interstellar space. Likewise sugar molecules. A nucleotide is
just a sugar with a phosphate group attached. String together
nucleotides and sugars, and you have RNA and DNA. String together
amino acids and you have proteins.
We haven't observed it happening naturally, but it really isn't that
complex. Taq polymerase can replicate a string of 1000 base pairs in
10 seconds. No doubt, the simplest kind of replication would be much
slower, but also would require a much simpler chemical, The simplest
known polymerases are around 99kDa in molecular weight, which means
that they are composed on less than a thousand amino acids (and other
molecular pieces)
>The truth is such a
>thing has never been observed and is not testable/verifiable -
>one can only believe in it. You would be lying to say otherwise.
It happens as part of every cell replication.
Meanwhile, science has been able to recreate the most difficult step
in RNA synthesis, using simple chemicals under conditions that were
possible on the early Earth:
https://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11101&start=400
It isn't proof that it DID happen that way, but it does demonstrate
how it COULD HAVE happened, and more importantly THAT it could have
happened.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >Show an observation or test/verification of separate chemicals
: >that are not already a cell coming together and self-organizing
: >into a cell.
:
: Why should I? It has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Never said it did. But you started out by saying that it's been
observed a multitude of times nonetheless, and now you're clearly
backpedaling to avoid backing up what you claimed:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 04:47:40 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 21:26:54 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: >
: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: >Too bad they can't actually create life with these chemicals,
: >:
: >: That'll happen eventually.
: >:
: >: > but can only continue to claim they somehow miraculously
: >: >self-organize into life on their own.
: >:
: >: That has been observed, a multitude of times.
: >
: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
:
: Read any paper, or elementary biological textbook for that matter,
: that discusses cell replication.
No, that's starting with a cell already existing. Either you have
been caught in your dishonesty, or you are quite ignorant of what
it means to have lifeless chemicals self-organize into life.
So again, please show an observation or test/verification of
separate chemicals that are not already a cell coming together
and self-organizing into a cell.
Or perhaps you were not being honest?
Bob LeChevalier
>: Read any paper, or elementary biological textbook for that matter,
>: that discusses cell replication.
>
>No, that's starting with a cell already existing.
So? Afterwards, there are two cells. So the second cell formed from
chemicals which were not already a cell (because if they were already
a cell, then when the new cell formed, the old cell would go away -
which it doesn't).
>either you have
>been caught in your dishonesty, or you are quite ignorant of what
>it means to have lifeless chemicals self-organize into life.
I know what it means. You don't seem to, and are trying to skew the
definition to support your assumptions.
gabriel
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I have enough understanding to know there's not a single
observation OR test/verification that shows chemicals that are
not a cell self-organizing into a cell (which is now suddenly
alive with amazing organized and complex, self-directed activity,
along with all the massive information in that cell [more
information than the entire Encyclopedia Britannica], and the
ability for it to be decoded and acted upon in a meaningful way).
If you have such a scientific case of chemicals that are not
currently a cell doing such a miraculous design and creation job
spontaneously (or even intelligently directed), please cite it.
Thank you.
: >
: > : >
: > : > :
: > : > : > And your foolish
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:20:56 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
If no one had told you about the amazing amount of time that has elapsed
from the time that life first began to the time that modern, complex
organisms developed, you might have an excuse for repeating your silly
objections, but people have told you and you have no valid objection any
more.
>along with all the massive information in that cell [more
>information than the entire Encyclopedia Britannica], and the
>ability for it to be decoded and acted upon in a meaningful way).
And you keep making more silly claims about how genes work.
>If you have such a scientific case of chemicals that are not
>currently a cell doing such a miraculous design and creation job
>spontaneously (or even intelligently directed), please cite it.
It is not the duty of supporters of science to find evidence to fit your
erroneous claims about evolution. If you want to learn about evolution,
learn about it. Stop making stupid claims that show that you don't have
a clue what is going on.
Bob LeChevalier
>I have enough understanding to know there's not a single
>observation OR test/verification that shows chemicals that are
>not a cell self-organizing into a cell (which is now suddenly
>alive with amazing organized and complex, self-directed activity,
The simplest living cell would not be so amazingly organized, nor
complex, and might not be self-directed (most living cells in
multi-celled organisms are not entirely self-directed, but are
controlled by signals from other cells).
>along with all the massive information in that cell [more
>information than the entire Encyclopedia Britannica],
The simplest living cells have *far* less information than the
Encyclopedia Britannica.
> and the ability for it to be decoded and acted upon in a meaningful way).
That is far simpler than you seem to think it is. DNA is NOT an
especially complicated chemical.
>If you have such a scientific case of chemicals that are not
>currently a cell doing such a miraculous design and creation job
>spontaneously (or even intelligently directed), please cite it.
Viruses, which are not cells, take over cellular mechanisms, and
spontaneously direct them to produce more viruses.
Devils Advocaat
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:20:56 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
You keep making this claim that there is more information in a single
cell than in the entire Encyclopedia Britannica, but you never present
any supporting evidence for this claim.
So lets see shall we?
The digitized version of the Encyclopedia Britannica fully installed
on a PC requires 4,876,300,288 bytes (or 4.54 Gigabytes).
A single copy of the human genome contains 6,329,400,000 nucleotides,
which can be digitally stored in 791,175,000 bytes (or less than 800
Megabytes).
So which has the most information?
I will let gabriel answer that question.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: Read any paper, or elementary biological textbook for that matter,
: >: that discusses cell replication.
: >
: >No, that's starting with a cell already existing.
:
: So? Afterwards, there are two cells. So the second cell formed from
: chemicals which were not already a cell (because if they were already
: a cell, then when the new cell formed, the old cell would go away -
: which it doesn't).
You still haven't answered the question, Bob, and keep snipping
it out. It's an easy question.
Please show an observation of chemicals that are not a cell
self-organizing into a cell (i.e., life). You claimed that's been
"observed a multitude of times." Do you now admit such a thing
has never been observed? If so, I thank you for your honesty. If
not, please provide the observation of such a thing.
:
: >either you have
: >been caught in your dishonesty, or you are quite ignorant of what
: >it means to have lifeless chemicals self-organize into life.
:
: I know what it means. You don't seem to, and are trying to skew the
: definition to support your assumptions.
:
: lojbab
: ---
: Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
: loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Here's what you keep snipping:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:44:14 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >Show an observation or test/verification of separate chemicals
: >that are not already a cell coming together and self-organizing
: >into a cell.
:
: Why should I? It has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Never said it did. But you started out by saying that it's been
observed a multitude of times nonetheless, and now you're clearly
back-pedaling to avoid backing up what you claimed:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 04:47:40 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 21:26:54 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: >
: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: >Too bad they can't actually create life with these chemicals,
: >:
: >: That'll happen eventually.
: >:
: >: > but can only continue to claim they somehow miraculously
: >: >self-organize into life on their own.
: >:
: >: That has been observed, a multitude of times.
: >
: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
:
Devils Advocaat
Encyclopedia Britannica also has the software necessary for it to be
decoded and acted upon in a meaningful way.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 02:49:07 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >: Read any paper, or elementary biological textbook for that matter,
>: >: that discusses cell replication.
>: >
>: >No, that's starting with a cell already existing.
>:
>: So? Afterwards, there are two cells. So the second cell formed from
>: chemicals which were not already a cell (because if they were already
>: a cell, then when the new cell formed, the old cell would go away -
>: which it doesn't).
>
>You still haven't answered the question, Bob, and keep snipping
>it out. It's an easy question.
>
>Please show an observation of chemicals that are not a cell
>self-organizing into a cell (i.e., life). You claimed that's been
>"observed a multitude of times."
You keep changing the question slightly to try to catch me. Sorry,
but I am tired of playing.
Here was your original question.
>: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
>: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
That describes cellular replication.
Devils Advocaat
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 02:49:07 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: >
: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: >: Read any paper, or elementary biological textbook for that matter,
: >: >: that discusses cell replication.
: >: >
: >: >No, that's starting with a cell already existing.
: >:
: >: So? Afterwards, there are two cells. So the second cell formed from
: >: chemicals which were not already a cell (because if they were already
: >: a cell, then when the new cell formed, the old cell would go away -
: >: which it doesn't).
: >
: >You still haven't answered the question, Bob, and keep snipping
: >it out. It's an easy question.
: >
: >Please show an observation of chemicals that are not a cell
: >self-organizing into a cell (i.e., life). You claimed that's been
: >"observed a multitude of times."
:
: You keep changing the question slightly to try to catch me. Sorry,
: but I am tired of playing.
:
: Here was your original question.
: >: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
: >: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
:
: That describes cellular replication.
No, that describes life creating more life. I said chemicals
self-organizing *into* life. It's sad you have to tell lies to
defend your beliefs. Everyone else would be glad, too, if you
stopped playing your game of being dishonest to cover up the
truth.
So on top of backing off from the statement you made which was
dishonest, you agree that chemicals that are not currently a cell
cannot self-organize into a cell (life), which is the point. This
is what these fish to man evolutionists also believe happened
(chemicals that are not currently a cell self-organizing into
life: a cell) so that evolution itself could supposedly get
started at some point after that - a miracle by any reckoning
that's never been observed, and is not testable and not
verifiable - one can only believe in something magical like that
ever happening. Thank you for finally being honest enough to
admit it.
:
: lojbab
Devils Advocaat
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:55:26 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>
> <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> : >On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 02:49:07 -0400, Bob LeChevalier: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> : >
> : >: >: Read any paper, or elementary biological textbook for that matter,
> : >: >: that discusses cell replication.
> : >: >
> : >: >No, that's starting with a cell already existing.
> : >:
> : >: So? Afterwards, there are two cells. So the second cell formed from
> : >: chemicals which were not already a cell (because if they were already
> : >: a cell, then when the new cell formed, the old cell would go away -
> : >: which it doesn't).
> : >
> : >You still haven't answered the question, Bob, and keep snipping
> : >it out. It's an easy question.
> : >
> : >Please show an observation of chemicals that are not a cell
> : >self-organizing into a cell (i.e., life). You claimed that's been
> : >"observed a multitude of times."
> :
> : You keep changing the question slightly to try to catch me. Sorry,
> : but I am tired of playing.
> :
> : Here was your original question.
> : >: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
> : >: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
> :
> : That describes cellular replication.
>
> No, that describes life creating more life. I said chemicals
> self-organizing *into* life. It's sad you have to tell lies to
> defend your beliefs. Everyone else would be glad, too, if you
> stopped playing your game of being dishonest to cover up the
> truth.
How about you and your claim that a single cell contains more
information than the entire Encyclopedia Britannica?
The entire human genome can be stored on a single 800 Mbyte CD.
The entire current version of the Encyclopedia Britannica requires
more than 4 Gbytes.
So which contains the most information?
>
> So on top of backing off from the statement you made which was
> dishonest, you agree that chemicals that are not currently a cell
> cannot self-organize into a cell (life), which is the point. This
> is what these fish to man evolutionists also believe happened
> (chemicals that are not currently a cell self-organizing into
> life: a cell) so that evolution itself could supposedly get
> started at some point after that - a miracle by any reckoning
> that's never been observed, and is not testable and not
> verifiable - one can only believe in something magical like that
> ever happening. Thank you for finally being honest enough to
> admit it.
If you consider what is in the fossil record and what organisms are
alive today, there are three clear facts that cannot be denied:
1) Life hasn't always existed.
2) Some life-forms no longer exist.
3) Some life-forms haven't always existed.
So as life didn't always exist, it must have formed at some stage from
the raw materials of the environment.
That is something both creationists and scientists can agree on.
It is only the how of it upon which they disagree.
Chemical reactions can occur without living organisms being involved,
and many of those involve organic chemicals.
So what limit do you put on how far these chemical reactions can go in
the progress towards forming a living organism and why?
>
> :
Juan M
"Devils Advocaat" <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2ef7de2b-e2d1-4579...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Not to be picky, but the EB in a text mode can be stored in less that 750
MB. The rest is in graphics, etc.
Bob LeChevalier
>: Here was your original question.
>: >: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
>: >: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
>:
>: That describes cellular replication.
>
>No, that describes life creating more life. I said chemicals
>self-organizing *into* life.
"Life" *IS* nothing but a bunch of chemicals that have
"self-organized", stupid.
>So on top of backing off from the statement you made which was
>dishonest, you agree that chemicals that are not currently a cell
>cannot self-organize into a cell (life), which is the point.
I agree to no such thing.
>a miracle by any reckoning
Not a miracle at all. Indeed, probably an inevitability.
Devils Advocaat
> "Devils Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
Of course you are not being picky but gabriel's claim was with respect
to the "entire Encyclopedia Britannica" which in all fairness should
include any graphics as they do form part of the information contained
in the said encyclopedia.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: Here was your original question.
: >: >: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
: >: >: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
: >:
: >: That describes cellular replication.
: >
: >No, that describes life creating more life. I said chemicals
: >self-organizing *into* life.
:
: "Life" *IS* nothing but a bunch of chemicals that have
: "self-organized", stupid.
:
: >So on top of backing off from the statement you made which was
: >dishonest, you agree that chemicals that are not currently a cell
: >cannot self-organize into a cell (life), which is the point.
:
: I agree to no such thing.
So you are claiming chemicals that are not a cell can
self-organize into a cell (life)? Please cite an observaiton
and/or test/verification that shows this happening.
:
: >a miracle by any reckoning
Devils Advocaat
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:02:16 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>
> <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> : >: Here was your original question.
> : >: >: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
> : >: >: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
> : >:
> : >: That describes cellular replication.
> : >
> : >No, that describes life creating more life. I said chemicals
> : >self-organizing *into* life.
> :
> : "Life" *IS* nothing but a bunch of chemicals that have
> : "self-organized", stupid.
> :
> : >So on top of backing off from the statement you made which was
> : >dishonest, you agree that chemicals that are not currently a cell
> : >cannot self-organize into a cell (life), which is the point.
> :
> : I agree to no such thing.
>
> So you are claiming chemicals that are not a cell can
> self-organize into a cell (life)? Please cite an observaiton
> and/or test/verification that shows this happening.
Can you back up your claim that a single cell has more information in
it than the entire Encyclopedia Britannica?
You seem to be dodging that one.
>
> :
Bob LeChevalier
>On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:02:16 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >: Here was your original question.
>: >: >: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
>: >: >: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
>: >:
>: >: That describes cellular replication.
>: >
>: >No, that describes life creating more life. I said chemicals
>: >self-organizing *into* life.
>:
>: "Life" *IS* nothing but a bunch of chemicals that have
>: "self-organized", stupid.
>:
>: >So on top of backing off from the statement you made which was
>: >dishonest, you agree that chemicals that are not currently a cell
>: >cannot self-organize into a cell (life), which is the point.
>:
>: I agree to no such thing.
>
>So you are claiming chemicals that are not a cell can
>self-organize into a cell (life)? Please cite an observaiton
>and/or test/verification that shows this happening.
I said above what I am claiming. We observe it in every new cell.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:02:16 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: >
: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: >: Here was your original question.
: >: >: >: >Please link to a site that offers the scientific paper showing
: >: >: >: >chemicals self-organizing into life.
: >: >:
: >: >: That describes cellular replication.
: >: >
: >: >No, that describes life creating more life. I said chemicals
: >: >self-organizing *into* life.
: >:
: >: "Life" *IS* nothing but a bunch of chemicals that have
: >: "self-organized", stupid.
: >:
: >: >So on top of backing off from the statement you made which was
: >: >dishonest, you agree that chemicals that are not currently a cell
: >: >cannot self-organize into a cell (life), which is the point.
: >:
: >: I agree to no such thing.
: >
: >So you are claiming chemicals that are not a cell can
: >self-organize into a cell (life)? Please cite an observaiton
: >and/or test/verification that shows this happening.
:
: I said above what I am claiming. We observe it in every new cell.
And what you said is:
: >So on top of backing off from the statement you made which was
: >dishonest, you agree that chemicals that are not currently a cell
: >cannot self-organize into a cell (life), which is the point.
:
: I agree to no such thing.
So then you agree: chemicals that are *not* currently a cell
cannot self-organize into a cell. Glad we agree.
Yes, cells can replicate more cells - but this is not an example
of what we agree on: that chemicals that are *not* a cell cannot
just self-organize into a cell.
Devils Advocaat
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:52:33 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>
> <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> : >On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:02:16 -0400, Bob LeChevalier: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> : >
Maybe now you think you have settled that, perhaps you can provide
supporting evidence for your claim that a single cell has more
information than the entire Encyclopedia Britannica.
>
> :
Bob LeChevalier
>On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:52:33 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>: >: >So on top of backing off from the statement you made which was
>: >: >dishonest, you agree that chemicals that are not currently a cell
>: >: >cannot self-organize into a cell (life), which is the point.
>: >:
>: >: I agree to no such thing.
>: >
>: >So you are claiming chemicals that are not a cell can
>: >self-organize into a cell (life)? Please cite an observaiton
>: >and/or test/verification that shows this happening.
>:
>: I said above what I am claiming. We observe it in every new cell.
>
>And what you said is:
>: >So on top of backing off from the statement you made which was
>: >dishonest, you agree that chemicals that are not currently a cell
>: >cannot self-organize into a cell (life), which is the point.
>:
>: I agree to no such thing.
>
>So then you agree
The words "I agree to no such thing" do not imply anything about what
else I might agree to.
>Yes, cells can replicate more cells - but this is not an example
>of what we agree on
We don't agree on anything.
Cory Albrecht
> Yes, cells can replicate more cells - but this is not an example
> of what we agree on: that chemicals that are *not* a cell cannot
> just self-organize into a cell.
Tell me, Gabriel, why do you always assume that those first
self-replicating units were just as complex as a human cell?
Oh, wait, you're doing that on purpose to prop up your favourite straw man.
Devils Advocaat
> and many of those involve organic chemicals.
>
> the progress towards forming a living organism and why?
>
VoiceOfReason
He tends to go away for a week or so, then returns to make an
additional post, hoping nobody notices.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
So you believe chemicals that are not currently a cell can
self-organize into a cell?
:
: lojbab
Free Lunch
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
that he never answered the prior questions and that his erroneous claims
had been obliterated.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:25:09 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
Under the circumstances of the earth where life is abundant, it would be
almost impossible for a competing form of life to arise, but on a
lifeless planet with the right environmental conditions it may be
inevitable.
Devils Advocaat
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:10:40 -0400, gabriel
And more likely than some invisible entity using magic to bring life
into existence.
Devils Advocaat
> On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:25:09 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>
> <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> : >On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:52:33 -0400, Bob LeChevalier: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> : >: >: >So on top of backing off from the statement you made which was
> : >: >: >dishonest, you agree that chemicals that are not currently a cell
> : >: >: >cannot self-organize into a cell (life), which is the point.
> : >: >:
> : >: >: I agree to no such thing.
> : >: >
> : >: >So you are claiming chemicals that are not a cell can
> : >: >self-organize into a cell (life)? Please cite an observaiton
> : >: >and/or test/verification that shows this happening.
> : >:
> : >: I said above what I am claiming. We observe it in every new cell.
> : >
> : >And what you said is:
> : >: >So on top of backing off from the statement you made which was
> : >: >dishonest, you agree that chemicals that are not currently a cell
> : >: >cannot self-organize into a cell (life), which is the point.
> : >:
> : >: I agree to no such thing.
> : >
> : >So then you agree
> :
> : The words "I agree to no such thing" do not imply anything about what
> : else I might agree to.
> :
> : >Yes, cells can replicate more cells - but this is not an example
> : >of what we agree on
> :
> : We don't agree on anything.
>
> So you believe chemicals that are not currently a cell can
> self-organize into a cell?
Where is your evidence that a single cell has more information than
the entire Encyclopedia Britannica?
>
> :
gabriel
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
First of all I didn't say stored digitally on a computer where
encryption using only so many bits out of 8 per byte (or word -
two bytes) for each piece of information. Second of all, cite
your scientific references to those numbers please as being a
count of all the information inside a cell, not just a copy of
the human genome. And lastly, even if it was less, does this
change the fact that it's an extremely large amount of
meaningfully encoded information? Not at all.
:
: I will let gabriel answer that question.
Notice you didn't back up your claim, but instead harped on the
number of bytes involved in information. If you're seriously
after truth you have only to ask yourself why you avoid questions
that expose the truth for you, rather than for you to hide from
it.
: >
: > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : > And your foolish
Devils Advocaat
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 05:16:35 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
You didn't clearly define what you meant by the word "information", as
far as most people are aware, the only "information" in a cell is that
which is found in its genome.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/info.shtml
From the above link:
"Cells are the fundamental working units of every living system. All
the instructions needed to direct their activities are contained
within the chemical DNA".
From that extract it is reasonable to assume that all the information
in a single cell is contained in its genome, is it not?
One point here, you never supported your claim with a single shred of
evidence or even a reasoned argument.
I recommend you read the whole page if you want to know more.
Granted a single copy of the human genome is a more compact form of
information storage than even the Encyclopedia Britannica on a DVD,
but this doesn't support your claim in any way.
>
> :
> : I will let gabriel answer that question.
>
> Notice you didn't back up your claim, but instead harped on the
> number of bytes involved in information. If you're seriously
> after truth you have only to ask yourself why you avoid questions
> that expose the truth for you, rather than for you to hide from
> it.
I used the Human Genome Project as the source for my reasoned argument
against your claim.
I also have a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica installed on my
computer, so I know how much information that contains.
So it was a simple matter of comparing the genome and the
encyclopedia.
What questions am I supposed to have been avoiding I wonder?
Especially as I have challenged your unsupported claim several times
in the last few days without a single response from yourself.
Maybe you can try and provide support for your claim.
Bob LeChevalier
>: You keep making this claim that there is more information in a single
>: cell than in the entire Encyclopedia Britannica, but you never present
>: any supporting evidence for this claim.
>:
>: So lets see shall we?
>:
>: The digitized version of the Encyclopedia Britannica fully installed
>: on a PC requires 4,876,300,288 bytes (or 4.54 Gigabytes).
>:
>: A single copy of the human genome contains 6,329,400,000 nucleotides,
>: which can be digitally stored in 791,175,000 bytes (or less than 800
>: Megabytes).
>:
>: So which has the most information?
>
>First of all I didn't say stored digitally on a computer where
>encryption using only so many bits out of 8 per byte (or word -
>two bytes) for each piece of information.
That is simply a measure of the amount of information, loser.
>Second of all, cite
>your scientific references to those numbers please as being a
>count of all the information inside a cell, not just a copy of
>the human genome.
Since everything in a human cell is built according to the information
in the genome, to claim that there is some other information in a cell
rather negates all of your claims about the significance of
information.
>And lastly, even if it was less, does this
>change the fact that it's an extremely large amount of
>meaningfully encoded information? Not at all.
It means that yet again you have proven yourself to be a liar who
cannot back up your silly erroneous claims.
>Notice you didn't back up your claim,
You haven't backed up yours, and now you are trying to back away from
it.
>but instead harped on the number of bytes involved in information.
That is a common measure of information. Have you a better one?
>If you're seriously after truth
Truth is for religion and philosophy.
Fact and evidence is for science.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:43:06 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: >: I don't need to believe it.
: >:
: >: >When you can back up this claim with an observation and/or
: >: >test/verification showing this happening, please post it.
: >:
: >: If we had such an observation, then abiogenesis would not be merely a
: >: hypothesis.
: >
: >Hypotheses are created to explain an observation.
:
: Usually.
:
: >The belief that
: >a single cell (i.e., life itself) can self-organize from mere
: >chemicals is not observable, not testable and not verifiable -
:
: "belief" might not be.
:
: On the other hand, a hypothesis that such a thing happens by some
: specific process or another (the explanation part) can indeed be
: tested by replicating that process. That by itself would not be proof
: that it DID happen in that way, and further evidence would be sought
: to support the hypothesis.
:
: >You're free to cite the observation of lifeless chemicals
: >self-organizing into the unfathomable organization, complexity
: >and life itself we see in a single cell.
:
: It happens as part of every cell replication.
I said lifeless chemicals self-organizing into the unfathomable
organization, complexity and life itself. I didn't say a cell
replicating to give us another cell. You're dishonesty is obvious
when you try to act like that's the same thing.
:
: There is no especial reason why to formation of any initial life form
: would necessarily be much simpler than the replication of the simplest
: cells alive today.
:
: We already know that chemicals as complex as amino acids can be formed
: in interstellar space. Likewise sugar molecules. A nucleotide is
: just a sugar with a phosphate group attached. String together
: nucleotides and sugars, and you have RNA and DNA. String together
: amino acids and you have proteins.
:
: We haven't observed it happening naturally, but it really isn't that
: complex. Taq polymerase can replicate a string of 1000 base pairs in
: 10 seconds. No doubt, the simplest kind of replication would be much
: slower, but also would require a much simpler chemical, The simplest
: known polymerases are around 99kDa in molecular weight, which means
: that they are composed on less than a thousand amino acids (and other
: molecular pieces)
:
: >The truth is such a
: >thing has never been observed and is not testable/verifiable -
: >one can only believe in it. You would be lying to say otherwise.
:
: It happens as part of every cell replication.
:
: Meanwhile, science has been able to recreate the most difficult step
: in RNA synthesis, using simple chemicals under conditions that were
: possible on the early Earth:
: https://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11101&start=400
:
: It isn't proof that it DID happen that way, but it does demonstrate
: how it COULD HAVE happened, and more importantly THAT it could have
: happened.
:
: lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>: On the other hand, a hypothesis that such a thing happens by some
>: specific process or another (the explanation part) can indeed be
>: tested by replicating that process. That by itself would not be proof
>: that it DID happen in that way, and further evidence would be sought
>: to support the hypothesis.
>:
>: >You're free to cite the observation of lifeless chemicals
>: >self-organizing into the unfathomable organization, complexity
>: >and life itself we see in a single cell.
>:
>: It happens as part of every cell replication.
>
>I said lifeless chemicals
All chemicals are lifeless.
>self-organizing into the unfathomable
>organization, complexity and life itself. I didn't say a cell
>replicating to give us another cell.
A cell is nothing more than chemicals that have self-organized.
>You're dishonesty is obvious when you try to act like that's the same thing.
You're dishonesty is obvious when you try to act like that's NOT the
same thing.
gabriel
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
No, we are speaking about information - obviously the genome
doesn't contain pictures, either. So the comparison still stands.
The information in the genome contains more information than the
information in the encyclopedia Britannica stored with the same
text compression.
gabriel
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I did. How about you and your claim that lifeless chemicals that
are not current life or a cell self-organizing into a cell /
life?
:
: The entire human genome can be stored on a single 800 Mbyte CD.
I never said on a computer. If you write out all the information
of the genome in pages of books, you'll see the correct
comparison to the text of the Encyclopedia Britannica, rather
than going digital, including the size of countless install data
files that don't have the actual encyclopedia on them, on top of
including pictures that are notoriously high in digital size as
well.
:
: The entire current version of the Encyclopedia Britannica requires
: more than 4 Gbytes.
:
: So which contains the most information?
The fact that it's even close still makes your point moot - using
your special form of comparing them, there's still information in
the genome of *one* cell that rivals the Encyclopedia Britannica.
One cell. Multiply that by the millions of cells that could fit
in the same hard drive space in your example to see an even more
humbling comparison. Multiply that by the trillions of cells that
exist in a human being for an even *more* humbling comparison.
Encoded information, and the ability for it to be decoded and
acted upon in a meaningful way is logical *proof* of a designer,
as uncomfortable of a thought that is to some.
: >
: > So on top of backing off from the statement you made which was
: > dishonest, you agree that chemicals that are not currently a cell
: > cannot self-organize into a cell (life), which is the point. This
: > is what these fish to man evolutionists also believe happened
: > (chemicals that are not currently a cell self-organizing into
: > life: a cell) so that evolution itself could supposedly get
: > started at some point after that - a miracle by any reckoning
: > that's never been observed, and is not testable and not
: > verifiable - one can only believe in something magical like that
: > ever happening. �Thank you for finally being honest enough to
: > admit it.
:
: If you consider what is in the fossil record and what organisms are
: alive today, there are three clear facts that cannot be denied:
:
: 1) Life hasn't always existed.
What created life from lifelessness then? What created matter?
What created energy?
: 2) Some life-forms no longer exist.
Yes, animals go extinct even today. This does not prove they
evolved from each other or that they spontaneously came into
existence.
: 3) Some life-forms haven't always existed.
See above.
:
: So as life didn't always exist, it must have formed at some stage from
: the raw materials of the environment.
That's where you impose your godless belief - that nothing can
create everything, including matter, energy and life - that
lifeless matter can spontaneously create life. All of which are
nothing more than fantastic, unscientific (not observable, not
testable, not verifiable) beliefs to replace the logical fact
that we were created, even if one wants to believe an alien
civilization did it.
:
: That is something both creationists and scientists can agree on.
Not true at all: creationists don't believe that nothing can
create everything, including matter, energy and life.
Creationists also don't believe lifeless matter can spontaneously
create life.
:
: It is only the how of it upon which they disagree.
:
: Chemical reactions can occur without living organisms being involved,
: and many of those involve organic chemicals.
It's life creating life.
Show a single observation of chemicals that are not currently
life self-organizing into a cell/life. Such a fantastic belief is
not observable, not testable and not verifiable.
:
: So what limit do you put on how far these chemical reactions can go in
: the progress towards forming a living organism and why?
If you want to call it science, the limits are what is
observable, testable and verifiable. In the entire recorded
history of the human race, spontaneous chemical reactions have
never created life. Now you are of course free to believe such
things happen - you're now believing in your own version of a god
- one that can create life from lifelessness even though such a
thing has never been observed and is not testable/verifiable - to
call such beliefs science is dishonest.
Using the same silly logic: What limits do you put on how far
trees can evolve toward become human beings, and why? Same
ridiculous logic used to cloud the fact that what you're claiming
is clearly impossible until shown to be otherwise, yet you're
silly things are possible if you just add the "magic" ingredient
of "enough time."
In the meantime, still waiting for an observation and
test/verification to back up:
[1] the fish to man version of evolution
[2] that nothing can create everything
[3] that chemicals that are not currently a cell can
self-organize into the amazing complexity and self-directed
non-stop action that is life/a cell.
Until you do, all your claims are nothing but non-scientific
beliefs, which enters the realm of religion - and a dishonest
religion as long as you keep claiming such religious beliefs are
scientific, let alone scientific fact.
So again, how about you and your claim that lifeless chemicals
that are not current life or a cell self-organizing into a cell /
life? You continue to avoid backing up that claim when you are
asked to do so several times.
: >
: > :
: > : lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>: The entire current version of the Encyclopedia Britannica requires
>: more than 4 Gbytes.
>:
>: So which contains the most information?
>
>The fact that it's even close
It's not close. The Britannica has 4 billion characters (that being
what a byte is) which include all the letters of the alphabet, all the
numerals, and a number of punctuation marks - perhaps 50
possibilities.
The human genome contains has 3 billion base pairs, and there are only
4 possibilities.
So just in terms of the amount of data (information), the Britannica
has at least 10 times as much as the human genome.
But the human genome is no where near the smallest for a living cell,
and you merely said "living cell". The smallest genome for a living
self-replicating organism has only a half a million base pairs, so the
Britannica has more than 60,000 times as much information than that.
And there are viruses that are even smaller, as little as 1/100 the
size of the smallest cell genome, that cannot self-replicate, but
organisms that small might be able to replicate under certain
environmental conditions that are simpler than the simplest living
cell. We don't yet know what the simplest possible environment would
be to enable replication - especially since modern viruses have
evolved to take advantage of living cells, and thus can (and must) be
more complex.
>still makes your point moot - using
>your special form of comparing them, there's still information in
>the genome of *one* cell that rivals the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Per above, not even close.
>One cell. Multiply that by the millions of cells that could fit
>in the same hard drive space in your example to see an even more
>humbling comparison. Multiply that by the trillions of cells that
>exist in a human being for an even *more* humbling comparison.
The trillions of cells are all the same.
>Encoded information, and the ability for it to be decoded and
>acted upon in a meaningful way is logical *proof* of a designer,
It isn't logical proof of ANYTHING.
You cannot prove ANYTHING without assumptions (and rules of
inference). Your assumptions are unstated, but clearly WRONG, since
they lead to the nonsense that you post.
>: If you consider what is in the fossil record and what organisms are
>: alive today, there are three clear facts that cannot be denied:
>:
>: 1) Life hasn't always existed.
>
>What created life from lifelessness then? What created matter?
>What created energy?
Who said that anything created it?
You *ASSume* that nothing can come into existence without being
created. There is no reason to ASSume that.
>: So as life didn't always exist, it must have formed at some stage from
>: the raw materials of the environment.
>
>That's where you impose your godless belief - that nothing can
>create everything, including matter, energy and life - that
>lifeless matter can spontaneously create life.
We have NO reason to believe that it can't, having identified NO
property of living things that cannot spontaneously appear by normal
biochemical reactions.
>All of which are
>nothing more than fantastic, unscientific (not observable, not
>testable, not verifiable) beliefs to replace the logical fact
>that we were created, even if one wants to believe an alien
>civilization did it.
There is nothing "logical" about your phony "fact", and indeed it begs
the question of who created the alien civilization. Or if you prefer,
"who created God?"
>: So what limit do you put on how far these chemical reactions can go in
>: the progress towards forming a living organism and why?
>
>If you want to call it science, the limits are what is
>observable, testable and verifiable.
But you don't know what any of those words mean, idiot.
>In the entire recorded
>history of the human race, spontaneous chemical reactions have
>never created life.
Every cell that is formed is put together by spontaneous chemical
reactions. Life is nothing but a set of spontaneous chemical
reactions that display certain properties.
>In the meantime, still waiting for an observation and
>test/verification to back up:
>
>[1] the fish to man version of evolution
All of evolutionary biology, though the statement is nonsensically
formulated.
>[2] that nothing can create everything
Nonsensical formulation.
>[3] that chemicals that are not currently a cell can
>self-organize into the amazing complexity and self-directed
>non-stop action that is life/a cell.
Nonsensical formulation.
>Until you do, all your claims are nothing but non-scientific
>beliefs,
You aren't qualified to make that judgment.
>So again, how about you and your claim that lifeless chemicals
>that are not current life or a cell self-organizing into a cell /
>life? You continue to avoid backing up that claim when you are
>asked to do so several times.
It isn't necessary to do so.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: On the other hand, a hypothesis that such a thing happens by some
: >: specific process or another (the explanation part) can indeed be
: >: tested by replicating that process. That by itself would not be proof
: >: that it DID happen in that way, and further evidence would be sought
: >: to support the hypothesis.
: >:
: >: >You're free to cite the observation of lifeless chemicals
: >: >self-organizing into the unfathomable organization, complexity
: >: >and life itself we see in a single cell.
: >:
: >: It happens as part of every cell replication.
: >
: >I said lifeless chemicals
:
: All chemicals are lifeless.
:
: >self-organizing into the unfathomable
: >organization, complexity and life itself. I didn't say a cell
: >replicating to give us another cell.
:
: A cell is nothing more than chemicals that have self-organized.
Since you want to claim it's possible, prove that lifeless
chemicals that are not currently a cell can self-organize into a
cell.
:
: >You're dishonesty is obvious when you try to act like that's the same thing.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:24:36 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >: On the other hand, a hypothesis that such a thing happens by some
>: >: specific process or another (the explanation part) can indeed be
>: >: tested by replicating that process. That by itself would not be proof
>: >: that it DID happen in that way, and further evidence would be sought
>: >: to support the hypothesis.
>: >:
>: >: >You're free to cite the observation of lifeless chemicals
>: >: >self-organizing into the unfathomable organization, complexity
>: >: >and life itself we see in a single cell.
>: >:
>: >: It happens as part of every cell replication.
>: >
>: >I said lifeless chemicals
>:
>: All chemicals are lifeless.
>:
>: >self-organizing into the unfathomable
>: >organization, complexity and life itself. I didn't say a cell
>: >replicating to give us another cell.
>:
>: A cell is nothing more than chemicals that have self-organized.
>
>Since you want to claim it's possible, prove that lifeless
>chemicals that are not currently a cell can self-organize into a
>cell.
No.