Denial of Evolution VI.

[ananymousse]

What is it with you and these statements?

You have this knack for cherrypicking soundbites from people thirty or more years ago that are phrased in an overly optimistic way and then suggesting that they indicate that there is something wrong whether it's an erroneous theory or a conspiracy.

Every now and then an imaginative conclusion based off evidence is perceived in a more imaginative manner. This often creates clerical error in epistemology. Much like the oracle of Delphi in ancient Greece huffing volcanic fumes in an attempt to become more objective over the information brought to them. Perhaps the point is to inspire others to be more imaginative and the points are often taken for facts as opposed to imaginative beliefs. My suggestion is finding an imaginative person still capable of judging experimentation and evidence as true aside from the normally registered conclusions found after the facts have been presented and making them king of this.

One person capable of pure imagination devoid of truth for the sole purpose of inspiration as opposed to the judgments of truth which pervade the minds of objective thinkers. Perhaps the key to epistemology in the process of learning from what we already know is; subjective imaginative ideas based off evidence, to objective thought based of new evidence, then later completely imaginative ideas precognitive of another subjective ideology which rests within philosophy. Perhaps we need to have imaginative blunders and erroneous conclusions not in order to be viewed as perfectly correct but in order to advance the stages of our human learning processes collaboratively as opposed to individually.

 

[wellwisher]

The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass flasks and flasks connected in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.
Within a day, the mixture had turned pink in colour,[9] and at the end of two weeks of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10–15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars were also formed.[10] Nucleic acids were not formed within the reaction. 18% of the methane-molecules became bio-molecules. The rest turned into hydrocarbons like bitumen.

The Miller experiments not only show how animo acids could form from simple gases and lightning, but he also formed hydrocarbons like bitumen. The significance of bitumen, is this is similar to coal.

If his simulation was correct for life and evolution, bitumen meant that oil/coal deposits had formed before life and not by life as evolution had been sales pitching. Mercenary science had to nip that in the bud, especially since big oil and big coal needed the illusion of resource scarcity that evolution was offering up at the time.

 

[leopold]

What is it with you and these statements?

You have this knack for cherrypicking soundbites from people thirty or more years ago that are phrased in an overly optimistic way and then suggesting that they indicate that there is something wrong whether it's an erroneous theory or a conspiracy.

it's also related to the complexities of life.
it's also related to an adequate definition of life.
if that isn't enough then we can throw in some human intelligence.
the question is now becoming VERY complex isn't it?

 

[leopold]

what took einstein 30 seconds will take biologist 30 years.
some genius is going to walk in here and solve it for everyone.

 

[origin]

If his simulation was correct for life and evolution, bitumen meant that oil/coal deposits had formed before life and not by life as evolution had been sales pitching. Mercenary science had to nip that in the bud, especially since big oil and big coal needed the illusion of resource scarcity that evolution was offering up at the time.

Oh for crying out loud - you never know what exquisitely goofy crap is going to come out of your mouth next.

 

[Trippy]

What is it with you and these statements?

You have this knack for cherrypicking soundbites from people thirty or more years ago that are phrased in an overly optimistic way and then suggesting that they indicate that there is something wrong whether it's an erroneous theory or a conspiracy.

it's also related to the complexities of life.
it's also related to an adequate definition of life.
if that isn't enough then we can throw in some human intelligence.
the question is now becoming VERY complex isn't it?

This doesn't even make any sense as a reply...

 

[billvon]

The Miller experiments not only show how animo acids could form from simple gases and lightning, but he also formed hydrocarbons like bitumen. The significance of bitumen, is this is similar to coal. If his simulation was correct for life and evolution, bitumen meant that oil/coal deposits had formed before life and not by life as evolution had been sales pitching. Mercenary science had to nip that in the bud, especially since big oil and big coal needed the illusion of resource scarcity that evolution was offering up at the time.

So:

1) Lightning forms all coal and oil which then comes raining out of the skies
2) The oil companies secretly know this and are trying to pretend that their oil wells are running dry and
3) Science knows this and is engaged in an even bigger coverup to fabricate fossils, tectonics, physics, geology, paleontology, astrophysics and biology.

Any commies or aliens in your theory? Perhaps a radio chip in someone's head?

 

[Arioch]

@Billvon --

No commies or aliens, just the Illuminati and the NWO.

 

[Randwolf]

what took einstein 30 seconds will take biologist 30 years.
some genius is going to walk in here and solve it for everyone.

Unless the Creationist supporters walk in here and destroy it for everyone...

Just a sample:

Louisiana Lawmakers Reject Proposed Repeal of State’s ‘Creation Science and Evolution Science Act’

BATON ROUGE – Louisiana’s House Education Committee on Wednesday rejected a repeal to a 1981 law which allows both creation science and evolutionary theory to be taught in public schools.

The proposed repeal was sponsored by Republican Dan Claitor, and—had it been passed—would have deleted Louisiana’s “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act.” According to the 1981 law, “balanced treatment” equates to allowing school teachers to “provide information and instruction in both creation and evolution models” that they deem “necessary and appropriate.”​

The depths of ignorance, nescience and stupidity continue to amaze me.

'Course, the fact that this thread is still going strong also amazes me.

 

[Aqueous Id]

no, AFTER miller-urey.
science was confident that within 10 years of miller-urey they would solve the riddle of life.
that was 1953.

I have no idea who 'science' is in this sentence, or where you came up with that proclamation - which is far from scientific - but let's assume it was the voted decision of all people holding science degrees in 1953 - that they all jointly signed a scientific finding, stating that the riddle of life would be solved in 10 years. I would submit that the riddle was solved 10 years ahead of schedule, with Watson & Crick's discovery of DNA.

1963 came and went 50 years ago and we are hardly any closer.

Since that's a completely subjective evaluation, it's impossible to say what it means and how you might reach a conclusion one way or the other. If you consider just the list of achievements billvon posted, there wouldn't seem to be anything else that fairly characterizes the last 50-60 yrs other than to say that science grew exponentially during that time. You seem to feel disappointed by science, but I have no idea why.

 

[Randwolf]

You [leopold] seem to feel disappointed by science, but I have no idea why.

Perhaps a complete lack of comprehension would explain the disappointment, no?

 

[gmilam]

Have you noticed the exponential leaps in the field of medicine over the last 50 to 60 years? Fairly good evidence that somebody has figured something out.

 

[Stanley]

Edited: Retraction. Delete post.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Have you noticed the exponential leaps in the field of medicine over the last 50 to 60 years? Fairly good evidence that somebody has figured something out.

All technology.

Medical technology may be that, but advances in medicine owe their progress to research. The emergence, discovery and treatment of HIV all happened in a short interval of that era. Interferon was discovered a few years after DNA, around the time the mass vaccinations against poliovirus began. The eradication of smallpox was declared in the middle of this era. And as huge as these advances were, they are just a few drops in the bucket. Your remark seems to minimize the value of scientific discovery in favor of advancements in technology, which seems to want to minimize what gmilam said.

I dont see how it fits in with the timelines.

I wonder what that means . . .

You think that humans could have been around for only say a few thousand years?

Given that gmilam is obviously not living under a rock, it's odd that you would ask this - but it doesn't follow from what you quoted.

 

[Stanley]

I retracted the post.

Given that gmilam is obviously not living under a rock, it's odd that you would ask this - but it doesn't follow from what you quoted.

I knew the answer, i wondering if there was the possibility.

 

[leopold]

I retracted the post.



I knew the answer, i wondering if there was the possibility.

sure, there is the possibility that all species were just plopped down here in one fell swoop, but you need to rationalize it.
good luck.

 

[Robittybob1]

sure, there is the possibility that all species were just plopped down here in one fell swoop, but you need to rationalize it.
good luck.

As long as "one fell swoop" is one billion years long at the very least.

 

[wellwisher]

So:

1) Lightning forms all coal and oil which then comes raining out of the skies
2) The oil companies secretly know this and are trying to pretend that their oil wells are running dry and
3) Science knows this and is engaged in an even bigger coverup to fabricate fossils, tectonics, physics, geology, paleontology, astrophysics and biology.

The early earth before life, needed precursors before life could form. Experiments to create these precursors from simple gases, led to things being produced, that were not expected, such as oils and bitumen and other complex resins. It logically follows (with logic not important to the religion of evolution) it would be hundreds of millions of years before life would appear and the oils and tars would accumulate to later to be infiltrated by life. But since evolution is a religion and that religion already had the fable of life making oil and coal, this could not change. Without the needed change, it was harder to gte the ball rolling in the right direction away from 19th century thinking.

Back in the 1960's they put a man on the moon in less than a decade and have not be able to match this feat since then. I was there and remember the projection was a man on Mars by 1990. Science was smarter and more creative back then and has become more dumbed down. Science expected changes in the status quo that would make such advances possible, not the dogma of empirical science that is more show due to technology but less go due to less ability. Maybe the wrong leaders lead science; celebrity instead of substance.

 

[Rav]

Let's see. Since Miller-Urey we have:

-discovered archaea, a whole new kingdom of life
-created a synthetic RNA molecule which can self-replicate forever
-discovered the Hayflick Limit (why cells stop reproducing)
-invented the polymerase chain reaction
-created the first cloned mammal
-sequenced the entire human genome
-created an entirely synthetic nucleus for a microorganism
-inserted genes from a species into an entirely different species - and had the old genes work
-discovered that we interbred with neanderthals

I'd say we're quite a bit closer.

One notable addition to this list would be the synthesis of ribonucleotides:

"...though researchers have been able to show how RNA’s component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients — a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases — ribonucleotides just wouldn’t form."

Bummer. Maybe these stupid scientists should just give up. I mean how ridiculous is it to be running around in labs performing random experiments in the desperate hope of finding something, anything, that can save them from having to admit that life is supernatural in origin. What total morons! Really, it makes me laugh!

"Sutherland’s team took a different approach in what Harvard molecular biologist Jack Szostak called a “synthetic tour de force” in an accompanying commentary in Nature."

What? They tried something new? That's kinda cheating isn't it? Who do these people, who have the nerve to persevere and innovate, think they are?

"'By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland. “The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.'"

Yeah right. Sounds plausible to me. Not.

"They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”

You know what? How is it fair that new information is always allowed into the debate? I'm just getting really sick of having to go back to the drawing board in order to develop new ways to ridicule the institution of science.

Anyway, fuck all this. Unless you can create the universe itself in a lab, you're still all morons compared to God.

Full article.

 

[Capracus]

But since evolution is a religion and that religion already had the fable of life making oil and coal, this could not change. Without the needed change, it was harder to gte the ball rolling in the right direction away from 19th century thinking.

So modern geology is religion too.

Back in the 1960's they put a man on the moon in less than a decade and have not be able to match this feat since then. I was there and remember the projection was a man on Mars by 1990. Science was smarter and more creative back then and has become more dumbed down. Science expected changes in the status quo that would make such advances possible, not the dogma of empirical science that is more show due to technology but less go due to less ability. Maybe the wrong leaders lead science; celebrity instead of substance.

It's not lack of ability that's deterred manned missions to the Moon and Mars, it's the lack of reasonable justification to do so.