Questioning Darwin

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Questioning Darwin

#401  Postby Sendraks » Feb 24, 2014 2:50 pm

questioner121 wrote: The problem I see, and I don't mean it in a bad way, is that the posters don't understand how it fits in with this topic.


That's fine and I don't take what you say in a bad way.
But I don't understand why you think it doesn't fit with this topic?

questioner121 wrote: Hopefully once we've uncovered what common ancestry is it'll be more clear.


The common ancestry of all life? You mean the very first living things that all life came from?
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15242
Age: 105
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#402  Postby Sendraks » Feb 24, 2014 2:51 pm

questioner121 wrote:Sorry but this is fantasy.


Because? :think:
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15242
Age: 105
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#403  Postby Rumraket » Feb 24, 2014 2:56 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0059300
Structural Phylogenomics Reveals Gradual Evolutionary Replacement of Abiotic Chemistries by Protein Enzymes in Purine Metabolism
Abstract

The origin of metabolism has been linked to abiotic chemistries that existed in our planet at the beginning of life. While plausible chemical pathways have been proposed, including the synthesis of nucleobases, ribose and ribonucleotides, the cooption of these reactions by modern enzymes remains shrouded in mystery. Here we study the emergence of purine metabolism. The ages of protein domains derived from a census of fold family structure in hundreds of genomes were mapped onto enzymes in metabolic diagrams. We find that the origin of the nucleotide interconversion pathway benefited most parsimoniously from the prebiotic formation of adenine nucleosides. In turn, pathways of nucleotide biosynthesis, catabolism and salvage originated ~300 million years later by concerted enzymatic recruitments and gradual replacement of abiotic chemistries. Remarkably, this process led to the emergence of the fully enzymatic biosynthetic pathway ~3 billion years ago, concurrently with the appearance of a functional ribosome. The simultaneous appearance of purine biosynthesis and the ribosome probably fulfilled the expanding matter-energy and processing needs of genomic information.


Beginning should have read:

The origin of metabolism has been linked to abiotic chemistries that we think existed in our planet at the beginning of life.

Uhh no, that is what the work implies. It's not assumed, that's what the phylogenomic methods used imply. :roll:

questioner121 wrote:It's absolutely dishonest and disgraceful that scientific works contain wording like this.

No, what's disgraceful is your empty dismissal of a subject you obviously know nothing about, on the basis of your own misunderstanding of what the paper says or implies.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13218
Age: 41

Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#404  Postby questioner121 » Feb 24, 2014 2:58 pm

Sendraks wrote:
questioner121 wrote:It's absolutely dishonest and disgraceful that scientific works contain wording like this.


Why?


Because it's not proven to be true. When writing about something that happened millions of years ago in a scientific journal, it gives the impression that it's true. It should be worded something like "we believe this process happened millions of years ago" or "we think the conditions millions of years ago were like x, y and z" or "if the environment millions of years ago was like x, y and z then this would fit in with our observations today...". This is more honest and gives the paper room to back-out in case further research reveals something contrary.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: AW: Questioning Darwin

#405  Postby Scar » Feb 24, 2014 3:02 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
questioner121 wrote:It's absolutely dishonest and disgraceful that scientific works contain wording like this.


Why?


Because it's not proven to be true. When writing about something that happened millions of years ago in a scientific journal, it gives the impression that it's true. It should be worded something like "we believe this process happened millions of years ago" or "we think the conditions millions of years ago were like x, y and z" or "if the environment millions of years ago was like x, y and z then this would fit in with our observations today...". This is more honest and gives the paper room to back-out in case further research reveals something contrary.

Then I hope you set the same standard for all religious works including the Bible.

Gesendet von meinem C6903 mit Tapatalk
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 35
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#406  Postby Rumraket » Feb 24, 2014 3:03 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
questioner121 wrote:It's absolutely dishonest and disgraceful that scientific works contain wording like this.


Why?


Because it's not proven to be true. When writing about something that happened millions of years ago in a scientific journal, it gives the impression that it's true. It should be worded something like "we believe this process happened millions of years ago" or "we think the conditions millions of years ago were like x, y and z" or "if the environment millions of years ago was like x, y and z then this would fit in with our observations today...". This is more honest and gives the paper room to back-out in case further research reveals something contrary.

The phylogenomic reconstruction used implies it. It is what they conclude based on their research, it's not merely "thought" to exist for it's own sake.

They set out to see what could be discovered using structural phylogenomics of structures and enzymes involved in known nucleotide metabolic processes. What they discovered was what they write, because this is the result they get from the method they used. Nobody just sat around and speculated this up wishfully, they did actual research and that is the result they got. Do you fathom this? Can you?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13218
Age: 41

Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#407  Postby Shrunk » Feb 24, 2014 3:19 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
questioner121 wrote:It's absolutely dishonest and disgraceful that scientific works contain wording like this.


Why?


Because it's not proven to be true. When writing about something that happened millions of years ago in a scientific journal, it gives the impression that it's true. It should be worded something like "we believe this process happened millions of years ago" or "we think the conditions millions of years ago were like x, y and z" or "if the environment millions of years ago was like x, y and z then this would fit in with our observations today...". This is more honest and gives the paper room to back-out in case further research reveals something contrary.


Or how about: "In the beginning,God created the heavens and the earth. At least, that's what some people say happened. But of course they have no way of knowing, do they? Most likely, it's just a myth, just like almost everything that is to follow...."

Better?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#408  Postby scott1328 » Feb 24, 2014 5:10 pm

Frank Merton wrote:
scott1328 wrote:
Frank Merton wrote:Causation is not a law of logic but an empirical observation.

Incorrect. Causation is only inferred from empirical observation.

Ah as we joyfully nit and twit down the ways of nit-twittery.


I know, do try to be more careful in your phrasing.
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8719
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#409  Postby questioner121 » Feb 24, 2014 5:59 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Or how about: "In the beginning,God created the heavens and the earth. At least, that's what some people say happened. But of course they have no way of knowing, do they? Most likely, it's just a myth, just like almost everything that is to follow...."

Better?


No one knows what happened in the beginning. But some people know that there is a God, the rest is faith.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#410  Postby Shrunk » Feb 24, 2014 6:20 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Or how about: "In the beginning,God created the heavens and the earth. At least, that's what some people say happened. But of course they have no way of knowing, do they? Most likely, it's just a myth, just like almost everything that is to follow...."

Better?


No one knows what happened in the beginning.


So do you not also find it "absolutely dishonest and disgraceful" that the Bible says it is known?

But some people know that there is a God, the rest is faith.


Wrong. No one knows there is a god, and all of it is faith.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#411  Postby questioner121 » Feb 24, 2014 6:33 pm

Shrunk wrote:
So do you not also find it "absolutely dishonest and disgraceful" that the Bible says it is known?

But some people know that there is a God, the rest is faith.


Wrong. No one knows there is a god, and all of it is faith.


Not at all. The person who wrote the Bible is claiming that this is how the world was created according to God. It's not a book of science which is used to write down observations and experiments although it does contain things that can be tested by science to verify them. The Bible contains stories, laws and revelations. Books like these can make whatever claim they wish.

It's hard to believe but there really really really is a God and some people know it. In the past some people saw for themselves undeniable evidence. Many people trust the accounts of those people but not all of them know that there is a God. It takes effort and will to find the truth, for me anyway.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#412  Postby The_Metatron » Feb 24, 2014 6:39 pm

Oh. Well. If there really really really is a god, that's somehow different.

Why does that sort of shit not shame you to write it?
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21274
Age: 58
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#413  Postby Shrunk » Feb 24, 2014 6:41 pm

questioner121 wrote: Not at all. The person who wrote the Bible is claiming that this is how the world was created according to God. It's not a book of science which is used to write down observations and experiments although it does contain things that can be tested by science to verify them. The Bible contains stories, laws and revelations. Books like these can make whatever claim they wish.


No, they shouldn't. If they are purporting to be a work of fiction, then fine. But if it purports to be a documentation of true events, then is is dishonest and deceitful to present things as facts which are not. If it began with "God claims that, in the beginning, he created the heavens and earth," that would be OK, so long as they had a verifiable source that confirms God actually claimed that.

It's hard to believe but there really really really is a God and some people know it.


Evidentally, it's not hard to believe, because so many people believe it.

That hard part, it seems, is being able to tell the difference between something you want to be true, and something that actually is true.

In the past some people saw for themselves undeniable evidence.


I find it "absolutely dishonest and disgraceful" that you would present this mere speculation as an unqualified fact. For shame! :naughty:

Many people trust the accounts of those people but not all of them know that there is a God. It takes effort and will to find the truth, for me anyway.


More than you are prepared to expend, it seems.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#414  Postby questioner121 » Feb 24, 2014 6:43 pm

Shrunk wrote:
questioner121 wrote: Not at all. The person who wrote the Bible is claiming that this is how the world was created according to God. It's not a book of science which is used to write down observations and experiments although it does contain things that can be tested by science to verify them. The Bible contains stories, laws and revelations. Books like these can make whatever claim they wish.


No, they shouldn't. If they are purporting to be a work of fiction, then fine. But if it purports to be a documentation of true events, then is is dishonest and deceitful to present things as facts which are not. If it began with "God claims that, in the beginning, he created the heavens and earth," that would be OK, so long as they had a verifiable source that confirms God actually claimed that.

It's hard to believe but there really really really is a God and some people know it.


Evidentally, it's not hard to believe, because so many people believe it.

That hard part, it seems, is being able to tell the difference between something you want to be true, and something that actually is true.

In the past some people saw for themselves undeniable evidence.


I find it "absolutely dishonest and disgraceful" that you would present this mere speculation as an unqualified fact. For shame! :naughty:

Many people trust the accounts of those people but not all of them know that there is a God. It takes effort and will to find the truth, for me anyway.


More than you are prepared to expend, it seems.



I never said it was a fact.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#415  Postby Animavore » Feb 24, 2014 6:45 pm

questioner121 wrote: In the past some people saw for themselves undeniable evidence.



http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p1886784
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44864
Age: 43
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#416  Postby Shrunk » Feb 24, 2014 6:48 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
questioner121 wrote: Not at all. The person who wrote the Bible is claiming that this is how the world was created according to God. It's not a book of science which is used to write down observations and experiments although it does contain things that can be tested by science to verify them. The Bible contains stories, laws and revelations. Books like these can make whatever claim they wish.


No, they shouldn't. If they are purporting to be a work of fiction, then fine. But if it purports to be a documentation of true events, then is is dishonest and deceitful to present things as facts which are not. If it began with "God claims that, in the beginning, he created the heavens and earth," that would be OK, so long as they had a verifiable source that confirms God actually claimed that.

It's hard to believe but there really really really is a God and some people know it.


Evidentally, it's not hard to believe, because so many people believe it.

That hard part, it seems, is being able to tell the difference between something you want to be true, and something that actually is true.

In the past some people saw for themselves undeniable evidence.


I find it "absolutely dishonest and disgraceful" that you would present this mere speculation as an unqualified fact. For shame! :naughty:

Many people trust the accounts of those people but not all of them know that there is a God. It takes effort and will to find the truth, for me anyway.


More than you are prepared to expend, it seems.



I never said it was a fact.


So when you say something is "really really really" true, that's not saying it's a fact? :lol:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#417  Postby questioner121 » Feb 24, 2014 7:00 pm

Shrunk wrote:

So when you say something is "really really really" true, that's not saying it's a fact? :lol:


That part is definitely a fact for many believers.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#418  Postby Shrunk » Feb 24, 2014 7:04 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:

So when you say something is "really really really" true, that's not saying it's a fact? :lol:


That part is definitely a fact for many believers.


Believing something is a fact does not make it a fact, now, does it?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#419  Postby theropod » Feb 25, 2014 12:02 am

Trilobites?

What's the matter questioner121, can't figure out a way for something like trilobites to arise, diversify on a grand scale, become extinct and still work creation into the picture?

Oh and your BS about not being able to be certain about dating deep time I suggest you read Cali's excellent post made a sticky HERE. Your ignorance isn't an excuse for blatant BS.

In reality we know a great deal about how to date things using consiliant results of empirical testing across a great many fields of examination. You're talking shit, again. It's a waste of time to engage your silliness (aside from the rebuttals to your assertions).


RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 67
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#420  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Feb 25, 2014 7:56 am

Frank Merton wrote:
scott1328 wrote:
Frank Merton wrote:Causation is not a law of logic but an empirical observation.

Incorrect. Causation is only inferred from empirical observation.

Ah as we joyfully nit and twit down the ways of nit-twittery.

Failure to refute the point being made has been noted.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 32
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest