scherado wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

scherado wrote:There is much to be gleaned from this separation.

Not unless you're a vitalist. If you're not a vitalist, you're capable of viewing life as a self-replicating system of coupled non-linear chemical reactions within some sort of mass/energy balance control volume, and subject to selection effects due to differential success in replication. Capsicum? ...]

No, no, three times no. The separation that I mean is the contrived separation made by those who made the separation. You might want to re-read my post.

When I told you--in my hello intro--that I spent 2 years informally debating these things on the "fairytale" website, I wasn't whistling dixxie.

Nobody gives a shit what you spent years of your life informally debating unless you have access to anything you've learned from it. Prebiotic chemical evolution has similarities and differences with biological evolution. You know the interstellar medium is full of clouds of gas and dust laden with copious amounts of complex organic chemistry, about which you have revealed you know precisely diddly-squat. You're not really whistling at all, here. It's more like the raspy sound of a wet fart. Extemporaneously delivered, of course.

http://evolutionfairytalk.com/forum/

You have to be kidding me.

scherado wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

scherado wrote:the first word of this list appears in this post.

Oh, come on, scherado. The word you're dying to write doesn't appear in that post. Do you believe it's a bad word? Don't just subvocalize it. Express it proudly, the same way you write 'soul'.

Uhhhh. the word DOES appear in the post!!!

But you know what I mean. If you can't bring yourself to write "shit", then I guess you can't.

scherado wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

scherado wrote:
I, simply--I thought--was demonstrating that I have knowledge of the separation of the two: 1) the question of first-life; 2) Biological Evolution, the theory. There is much to be gleaned from this separation. No? Yes.

The easiest way to demonstrate this understanding would be to not mention it, unbidden, in the context of a question that has nothing to do with it. All we've managed to glean, I think, is that you felt the need to talk about it.

Is there a block list employed on this forum?

There's an easy way to find out, but that would require intellectual curiosity and just a little bit of effort. Somewhat less than what's required to learn the basics of common descent though, so let's see if you can manage that first

scherado wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

scherado wrote:
I, simply--I thought--was demonstrating that I have knowledge of the separation of the two: 1) the question of first-life; 2) Biological Evolution, the theory. There is much to be gleaned from this separation. No? Yes.

The easiest way to demonstrate this understanding would be to not mention it, unbidden, in the context of a question that has nothing to do with it. All we've managed to glean, I think, is that you felt the need to talk about it.

Is there a block list employed on this forum?

We do have a kind of informal, er, shit list, cf.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/feedb ... tml#p35454

The former members on that list are, how you say, blocked. They don't all of them come back, but some do. Repeatedly.

Let's see how long it takes.

And my post is being ignored for some reason.

I believe I asked some rather straightforward questions.

Rumraket wrote:And my post is being ignored for some reason.

I believe I asked some rather straightforward questions.

That does indeed appear to be the problem.

scherado wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:...
Is that supposed to mean someting to me? If you're not just trolling and your posts are intended to be genuine, then I advise you to stop acting so arrogant and condescending.
...

My advice to you is to STOP reading my posts.

You've got that arse-backwards. You signed a FUA by joining this forum. You don't get to continually snipe at other members and expect them to stop reading your posts.

scherado wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

scherado wrote:
I, simply--I thought--was demonstrating that I have knowledge of the separation of the two: 1) the question of first-life; 2) Biological Evolution, the theory. There is much to be gleaned from this separation. No? Yes.

The easiest way to demonstrate this understanding would be to not mention it, unbidden, in the context of a question that has nothing to do with it. All we've managed to glean, I think, is that you felt the need to talk about it.

Is there a block list employed on this forum?

As I already pointed out, no. But your repeated desire to block members who point out the bullshit you're spouting is quite telling.

I think it's more the desire to let people know that he is pretending to ignore people by repeatedly asking, in public, the people who he allegedly wishes to block, if there is a way to block members, so that he can troll more. If he really wanted to know, he'd ask the right people. I mean come on, the guy feels comfortable making remarks about other people's level of understanding while simultaneously admitting he doesn't know the universal symbols for male and female.

Cito di Pense wrote:... You know the interstellar medium is full of clouds of gas and dust laden with copious amounts of complex organic chemistry, about which you have revealed you know precisely diddly-squat. ...

You've implied that you believe what I've quoted above. That's your perogative. By "interstellar medium" I presume you mean a location far out of reach of any probe we could send from Earth. Given that, there's no way for you or anyone else to be certain about the nature of what you refer to as, "complex organic chemistry."

Let's be clear, someone on Earth could guess correctly about the substances in the gas and dust, but there would never be confirmation.

The phrase "complex organic chemistry" contains one referent, "chemistry"; the others are descriptors.

Tell us all what is this thing you call "chemistry?"

Saying stupid things confidently is not a virtue, no matter how much Trump has convinced you of it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29368984

The molecule was detected in a giant gas cloud called Sagittarius B2, an active region of ongoing star formation in the centre of the Milky Way.

As stars are born in the cloud they heat up microscopic dust grains. Chemical reactions on the surface of the dust allow complex molecules like i-propyl cyanide to form.

The molecules emit radiation that was detected as radio waves by twenty 12m telescopes at the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (Alma) in Chile.

Each molecule produces a different "spectral fingerprint" of frequencies. "The game consists in matching these frequencies… to molecules that have been characterised in the laboratory," explained Dr Belloche.

Do everyone a favor and read a fucking book.

scherado wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:... You know the interstellar medium is full of clouds of gas and dust laden with copious amounts of complex organic chemistry, about which you have revealed you know precisely diddly-squat. ...

You've implied that you believe what I've quoted above. That's your perogative. By "interstellar medium" I presume you mean a location far out of reach of any probe we could send from Earth. Given that, there's no way for you or anyone else to be certain about the nature of what you refer to as, "complex organic chemistry."

Let's be clear, someone on Earth could guess correctly about the substances in the gas and dust, but there would never be confirmation.

The phrase "complex organic chemistry" contains one referent, "chemistry"; the others are descriptors.

Tell us all what is this thing you call "chemistry?"

Time to explore the forum a bit? Simply follow the link in this post to see the photo-chemistry of Sol and realise that such spectroscopy (with a few added extra tools) works across billions of light years.

I'll chip in about abiogenesis - why not - I'm so practiced at telling this I can do it on autopilot.

The earliest evidence of life yet found are fossilised microorganisms in hydrothermal vent precipitates. That fact ties in very neatly with the popular hypothesis that abiogenesis happened around the warm, chemical-rich environment in the proximity of hydrothermal vents. There is a point where inorganic molecules become named protobiotic molecules, and then biological molecules. I have zero problem with that misty semantic cloud and don't know why anybody would. Also, subsequent incidences of abiogenesis wouldn' get far because, like me, Charly D pointed out any such protobiotic molecules would be instantly consumed/absorbed by more evolved enzymes and microorganisms these days, which would not have been the case before life began on planet earth. And breath.

Oh yeah, and I am male - that's what the blue arrow thing means. Blue for boys and pink for girls.

This post still shreds so:

Keep It Real wrote:This image takes "kinky" to a whole new level.

Chimpanzees & gorillas undoubtedly share a single common ancestor. Linnaeus originally placed humans and chimpanzees in the same genus until the church made him put humans in a separate category.

/thread

scherado wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:... You know the interstellar medium is full of clouds of gas and dust laden with copious amounts of complex organic chemistry, about which you have revealed you know precisely diddly-squat. ...

You've implied that you believe what I've quoted above. That's your perogative. By "interstellar medium" I presume you mean a location far out of reach of any probe we could send from Earth. Given that, there's no way for you or anyone else to be certain about the nature of what you refer to as, "complex organic chemistry."

Let's be clear, someone on Earth could guess correctly about the substances in the gas and dust, but there would never be confirmation.

The phrase "complex organic chemistry" contains one referent, "chemistry"; the others are descriptors.

Tell us all what is this thing you call "chemistry?"

Don't waste my fucking time. Asking anyone you interact with to lay out all of scientific knowledge for you is a transparent and feeble setup for trolling. The following is the seventh post of your illustrious career at this forum:

scherado wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

scherado wrote:... a method of critical thinking, ... to determine the truth-value of anything. ...

...
Just for the record, I don't accept the notion that "anything" has a truth value. ...

Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant about "anything": I meant something asserted, a statement, anything one reads or hears, is this-or-that factual, and so on. For example, when I read an essay or article in a publication, what we used to call newspapers and such, I need to evaluate what I read for it's truth-value. The same in a publication by a biological evolutionist.

The stuff I've emphasised, above? That's your ticket for rejecting anything you read. So don't ask me to give you anything to read.

You could, as already suggested, quit faking ignorance, instead of this half-assed diddling of the "truth-value" of what what you read. Your simulated deep ignorance of science is no mystery, especially to you.

As I said earlier, the addition of the “ist” suffix is the tell. I’m not so sure hosiery isn’t in play.

RS

theropod wrote:As I said earlier, the addition of the “ist” suffix is the tell. I’m not so sure hosiery isn’t in play.

RS

Consider, for example, one forum member who's phony struggles with the English language are legendary. Its all there if you don't mind loosing some tiem. Capice?

scherado wrote:
You, apparently, are one of those people who can't abide uncertainty. That's your problem, not mine. I've examined things over many years, I'm 57, and when I declare, "I don't know," it's after extensive consideration, decades. I'm not one of those Agnostics who hasn't labored over the evidence and just quits thinking.

I've seen the evidence and think there's something missing or unknown. Capice?

Yes, my carapace has been itching more than usual lately.

RS

scherado wrote:

I have written in these languages, in order learned:

APL (IBM, "A Programming Language", interpretive, College & Job)
APL2 (College & Job)
PASCAL (College, compiler)
PASCAL2 (College, compiler)
PROLOG (College, interpretive)
FORTRAN (College)
ASSEMBLY (College & Job training)
COBOL (College)
PL1 (IBM, "Programming Language 1")
REXX (IBM, Scripting language, HTML is a kind of "scripting language")
C (Grad school)
C++ (Grad school)

Don't fucking tell me you learned nothing about spectroscopy along the way. If you get bored with recalling that, give us a lecture on the semiotics of traffic signals.