For the alternative theorists:

leopold said:
ah yes, more alleged "shoddy reporting".
an assumption on your part trippy, you weren't there.
it's amazing how you can smear the name of a respected source like this.
whether you consider it shoddy or not, the above conclusion WAS reached by the conference and that conclusion was printed inside the pages of a well respected source.
Click to expand...

I may not have been there, but clearly I have done more research than you into what was presented, as well as wha

leopold said:
remember also, "science" never issued any errata, corrections, or retractions regarding this matter.
Click to expand...
Even after it has been explained to you why the reasonably might not do this, you persist in using this argument? Many members of this forum would consider that trolling.
 
Ophiolite said:
We have never observed life being created by a supernatural being either. On that basis would you agree that the creationists are also wrong?
Click to expand...
you have come into the thread late ophiolite.
i think i have made my stand on the subject clear, although some morons continue with their crap.
 
dumbest man on earth said:
Trippy, I clearly stated : "billvon, I can accept your first two (2) statements".

billvon, and myself were discussing the "number" of cells and the methods utilized in cellular biology to increase the "number of cells".
Our discussion did not concern the "size" of the cells.
Though, of course an increase in the total amount of cells in any organism would most likely contribute to an increase in the "size" of that organism.


Trippy, again I am sorry, but I cannot concur with the ^^above quoted^^ statement.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying then is that Mitosis makes each generation of cells progressively smaller than the previous generation of cells?

:roll:

During Mitosis cellgrowth occurs during the G[sub]1[/sub] and G[sub]2[/sub] phases, so yes, actually, your discussion does concern the size of individual cells (as well).

Think about it.
 
leopold said:
science HAS NEVER observed life coming from non life despite the 1000s, maybe 10s of 1000s, of attempts of trying.
Click to expand...
We have created artificial genomes and artificial self-replicating molecules that eat and inherit their parent's pattern (the most basic definition of life) from non-life.
"new cells" come from other living cells which divide to produce the "new cell"
Click to expand...
Then how did you ever get to be larger than an ovum?
 
Trippy said:
I may not have been there, but clearly I have done more research than you into what was presented, as well as wha


Even after it has been explained to you why the reasonably might not do this, you persist in using this argument? Many members of this forum would consider that trolling.
Click to expand...
if lewin screwed up as bad as you would like for us to believe, then "science" would be profuse in its apologies to EVERYONE that was present at that conference.
furthermore, i honestly believe "science" would make SURE lewin NEVER wrote for them again.

you know, it's funny, HE LIED! HE LIED! HE LIED! HE LIED! :rolleyes:
if only you could hear yourself.
 
billvon said:
We have created artificial genomes and artificial self-replicating molecules that eat and inherit their parent's pattern (the most basic definition of life) from non-life.
Click to expand...
the most "basic" form of life is the living cell.
Then how did you ever get to be larger than an ovum?
Click to expand...
well see, it goes like this:
a living cell digests the "food" they get and when the right time comes it divides into 2 cells.
this process continues until i am a "big boy".
 
leopold said:
if lewin screwed up as bad as you would like for us to believe, then "science" would be profuse in its apologies to EVERYONE that was present at that conference.
furthermore, i honestly believe "science" would make SURE lewin NEVER wrote for them again.

you know, it's funny, HE LIED! HE LIED! HE LIED! HE LIED! :rolleyes:
if only you could hear yourself.
Click to expand...

Only, at no point have I actually said he lied, have I?

Maybe you should look in a mirror.
 
leopold said:
you know, it's funny, HE LIED! HE LIED! HE LIED! HE LIED! :rolleyes:
if only you could hear yourself.
Click to expand...


Pot, kettle, black!
You keep on about the red herring details argument. The FACT remains, evolution is observed and logical from the findings, and Abiogenesis is damn well certain and the only choice that exists, ignoring omnipotent deities myths.
 
leopold said:
then what is your beef with what was written?
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure i've made my opinion of Lewins report on that conference quite clear. If you haven't figured it out by now, why should I waste my time explaining it again?
 
paddoboy said:
. . . and Abiogenesis is damn well certain and the only choice that exists, ignoring omnipotent deities myths.
Click to expand...
does the prospect scare you?
absurdities, which do you choose?
like everyone else, i side with natural causes.
now, let's see the proof of it.
 
leopold said:
the most "basic" form of life is the living cell.
Click to expand...
No, the most basic form of life is something that eats, reproduces itself and passes its form on to a new generation. A cell is the way WE know how to do that, but definitely not the only way to do that.
a living cell digests the "food" they get and when the right time comes it divides into 2 cells.
this process continues until i am a "big boy".
Click to expand...
Waitaminute! You are saying there is some process which takes non-life and turns it into life? O the humanity!

(Yes, that's what happens - and that's how we get larger, and add life to non-life.)
 
leopold said:
does the prospect scare you?
Click to expand...

What prospect? The prospect of some almighty omnipotent deity judging me when I kick the bucket?
No, not in the least. What does worry me though are the myriads of evangelistic God botherers out there and their closet supporters still believing in mythical delusions even as adults.

leopold said:
absurdities, which do you choose?
Click to expand...


The Universe is a weird and wonderful place, and sometimes due to our lack of knowledge, some things that seem absurd are not so. eg: The otherwise great scientists Lord Kelvin, said words to the effect that man would never fly....The ancients would have believed that what we take for granted today, like radio, TV, phones etc would have been absurd.

leopold said:
like everyone else, i side with natural causes.
now, let's see the proof of it.
Click to expand...



Logic, and logic alone, specifies that life had to have arisen from non life, via complicated chemical reactions.
In fact both you and the computer you are sitting in front of, are nothing more then star stuff.
In fact, going on what we do know of the Universe today, and cosmology in general, we do not even need this mythical omnipotent being, you are so evangelically pushing as an alternative to scientific logic..
 
leopold said:
science and knowledge are not synonymous.
Click to expand...

Grasping at straws now?

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
WIKI:
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Full Definition of SCIENCE

1
: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2
a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>
b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/science?q=science
A2 (knowledge from) the careful study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by watching, measuring, and doing experiments, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
 
leopold said:
the conference was composed of 50 or so scientists.
geologists, paleontologists, and evolutionists, among others.
Click to expand...
Exactly how many and among what others? Just a small detail I'd like to have cleared up.
the conference concluded that the process of adaptation CANNOT be applied to macroevolution.
Click to expand...
By the majority, I'm sure.
And the entire Theory of Evolution rested on that single fact? Scrap Darwin folks. Macro organism (which usually are well adapted to their environment have not yet been shown to adapt any further to their environment. Of course we do have refinements in the already present adaptions, but that don't count. A tiger cannot turn into a cow, when living in a grassy environment with lots of game. Brilliant observation.
the conference exposed the gaps in the record.and the now infamous ayala "retraction", which BTW, never appears in "science".
Click to expand...
Ah, another visit by our old friend "god of the gaps".
how you CAN'T have a problem with this is a mystery.
Click to expand...
I have a problem with that, but not anywhere near a problem as I have with your "unshakable" confidence that "50 or so" scientists (?) are right while the rest of the scientific world seems to consider the matter trivial (my expression).
this should piss off any scientist that had any guts.
Click to expand...
It seems to have pissed you off.
the alleged ayala retraction is what really did it for me.
Click to expand...
So, from "50 or so" scientist your actual issue is with just one of them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top