Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Heck we know the fighting's getting bad when trout (sorry trout) can't stand to read some posts.
I'm glad I spoke up, though. It seems to have had a positive ripple effect. Discussions, even heated ones, can be music. But constant bickering is just noise.
Yes, I know. It's intended as an insult to a Liberal bastion whose failures are eclipsed only by Ivy League schools.
Let's put what you're saying into context.
You believe, as the Berkley nutters do, that if we take a person of the Negroid race and put them in Antarctica for 10 Million years, they will magically change into the Caucasoid race with blonde hair and blue eyes and pale skin tones, just because they are in the Antarctic and for no other reason.
Likewise, you believe that if we take members of the Mongoloid race and house them in Pfenningbüttel in Kries Osterholz in Germany for 10 Million years their skin pigmentation will change, their hair color will change and their folds in their eyelids will change, just because they liked to eat at the King Du, dance at the King George disco and eat schintzel at Gasthaus Sharmbeck and for no other reason.
And then if we put members of the Caucasoid race in the Congo, they will suddenly have dark skin, black hair, broader noses and wider nostrils, just because they're there and for no other reason.
Do you not see the absurdity of your position?
A bird's feather colors or beak does not change simply because you put it in a different environment.
Unless and until there is a mutation, nothing happens very slowly. Period.
The environment per se, cannot cause Evolution.
I qualified that, because if you moved an organism from Miami, Florida to Denver, Colorado, well, the natural background radiation is significantly higher and so we have the probability and statistics thing going on because the chances of a mutation occurring are significantly greater.
Evolution occurs if, and only if, there's a mutation. The Berkley nutters are wrong.
Why are you so afraid to read what the two Nobel Prize-winning scientists who discovered DNA wrote?
Are you really that timid and close minded?
They never believed for a minute that life formed on Earth. And their logic and arguments are not based on philosophy or religion. They're based on science.
The question isn't how or why life formed on Earth, the question is how or why life formed. Period.
Trying to crowbar the issue into life formed on Earth only feeds into the self-aggrandizing ethnocentric position that religious nutters on Earth already have, which is that they're somehow "special."
Everything you need for life is in Space. How is it you do not keep up on current events, because that was irrefutably proven in December 2019?
Even so, it is possible life formed on Earth. How many Kingdoms formed and died out after 10,000 years, a Million years, 10 Million years or 100 Million years, we'll never know.
Single-celled organisms don't always leave evidence packaged neatly for us to find in a convenient location.
Their secretions could have been mineralized or calcified and then just as easily destroyed by other organisms who consumed their secretions, or through plate tectonics, erosion and other natural processes, or destroyed by natural chemical processes.
At the end of the day, you've needlessly created a mystery where none exists because you don't understand basic high school chemistry or what DNA is and how it works.
You need to start studying, and not Berkley nonsense.
I'm glad I spoke up, though. It seems to have had a positive ripple effect. Discussions, even heated ones, can be music. But constant bickering is just noise.
Thanks for speaking up about the bickering. I will do my part to avoid taking part in it. I might fail to avoid doing so, at times, but I will make a genuine, ongoing effort to avoid it.
Yes, I know. It's intended as an insult to a Liberal bastion whose failures are eclipsed only by Ivy League schools.
Let's put what you're saying into context.
You believe, as the Berkley nutters do, that if we take a person of the Negroid race and put them in Antarctica for 10 Million years, they will magically change into the Caucasoid race with blonde hair and blue eyes and pale skin tones, just because they are in the Antarctic and for no other reason.
Likewise, you believe that if we take members of the Mongoloid race and house them in Pfenningbüttel in Kries Osterholz in Germany for 10 Million years their skin pigmentation will change, their hair color will change and their folds in their eyelids will change, just because they liked to eat at the King Du, dance at the King George disco and eat schintzel at Gasthaus Sharmbeck and for no other reason.
And then if we put members of the Caucasoid race in the Congo, they will suddenly have dark skin, black hair, broader noses and wider nostrils, just because they're there and for no other reason.
Do you not see the absurdity of your position?
A bird's feather colors or beak does not change simply because you put it in a different environment.
Unless and until there is a mutation, nothing happens very slowly. Period.
The environment per se, cannot cause Evolution.
I qualified that, because if you moved an organism from Miami, Florida to Denver, Colorado, well, the natural background radiation is significantly higher and so we have the probability and statistics thing going on because the chances of a mutation occurring are significantly greater.
Evolution occurs if, and only if, there's a mutation. The Berkley nutters are wrong.
Why are you so afraid to read what the two Nobel Prize-winning scientists who discovered DNA wrote?
Are you really that timid and close minded?
They never believed for a minute that life formed on Earth. And their logic and arguments are not based on philosophy or religion. They're based on science.
The question isn't how or why life formed on Earth, the question is how or why life formed. Period.
Trying to crowbar the issue into life formed on Earth only feeds into the self-aggrandizing ethnocentric position that religious nutters on Earth already have, which is that they're somehow "special."
Everything you need for life is in Space. How is it you do not keep up on current events, because that was irrefutably proven in December 2019?
Even so, it is possible life formed on Earth. How many Kingdoms formed and died out after 10,000 years, a Million years, 10 Million years or 100 Million years, we'll never know.
Single-celled organisms don't always leave evidence packaged neatly for us to find in a convenient location.
Their secretions could have been mineralized or calcified and then just as easily destroyed by other organisms who consumed their secretions, or through plate tectonics, erosion and other natural processes, or destroyed by natural chemical processes.
At the end of the day, you've needlessly created a mystery where none exists because you don't understand basic high school chemistry or what DNA is and how it works.
You need to start studying, and not Berkley nonsense.
Thanks for the post!
Faced with this chicken-and-egg problem, Crick and his colleague Leslie Orgel reasoned that life should have arisen in a place where there exists a “mineral or compound” capable of replacing the function of the enzymes, and from there it would have been disseminated to other planets like Earth by “the deliberate activity of an extraterrestrial society.”
Yes, I know. It's intended as an insult to a Liberal bastion whose failures are eclipsed only by Ivy League schools.
Let's put what you're saying into context.
You believe, as the Berkley nutters do, that if we take a person of the Negroid race and put them in Antarctica for 10 Million years, they will magically change into the Caucasoid race with blonde hair and blue eyes and pale skin tones, just because they are in the Antarctic and for no other reason.
Nipped for space ...
Yes, take European people and put them in Africa a million years ago. Their skin will change to better offer then skin protection the sun.
They may not look exactly like people there today, but there will be changes. Lets assume they don't have air-condition houses and suntan lotion that is. No stress, no change.
Yes, I know. It's intended as an insult to a Liberal bastion whose failures are eclipsed only by Ivy League schools.
Let's put what you're saying into context.
You believe, as the Berkley nutters do, that if we take a person of the Negroid race and put them in Antarctica for 10 Million years, they will magically change into the Caucasoid race with blonde hair and blue eyes and pale skin tones, just because they are in the Antarctic and for no other reason.
Likewise, you believe that if we take members of the Mongoloid race and house them in Pfenningbüttel in Kries Osterholz in Germany for 10 Million years their skin pigmentation will change, their hair color will change and their folds in their eyelids will change, just because they liked to eat at the King Du, dance at the King George disco and eat schintzel at Gasthaus Sharmbeck and for no other reason.
And then if we put members of the Caucasoid race in the Congo, they will suddenly have dark skin, black hair, broader noses and wider nostrils, just because they're there and for no other reason.
Do you not see the absurdity of your position?
A bird's feather colors or beak does not change simply because you put it in a different environment.
Unless and until there is a mutation, nothing happens very slowly. Period.
The environment per se, cannot cause Evolution.
I qualified that, because if you moved an organism from Miami, Florida to Denver, Colorado, well, the natural background radiation is significantly higher and so we have the probability and statistics thing going on because the chances of a mutation occurring are significantly greater.
Evolution occurs if, and only if, there's a mutation. The Berkley nutters are wrong.
Why are you so afraid to read what the two Nobel Prize-winning scientists who discovered DNA wrote?
Are you really that timid and close minded?
They never believed for a minute that life formed on Earth. And their logic and arguments are not based on philosophy or religion. They're based on science.
The question isn't how or why life formed on Earth, the question is how or why life formed. Period.
Trying to crowbar the issue into life formed on Earth only feeds into the self-aggrandizing ethnocentric position that religious nutters on Earth already have, which is that they're somehow "special."
Everything you need for life is in Space. How is it you do not keep up on current events, because that was irrefutably proven in December 2019?
Even so, it is possible life formed on Earth. How many Kingdoms formed and died out after 10,000 years, a Million years, 10 Million years or 100 Million years, we'll never know.
Single-celled organisms don't always leave evidence packaged neatly for us to find in a convenient location.
Their secretions could have been mineralized or calcified and then just as easily destroyed by other organisms who consumed their secretions, or through plate tectonics, erosion and other natural processes, or destroyed by natural chemical processes.
At the end of the day, you've needlessly created a mystery where none exists because you don't understand basic high school chemistry or what DNA is and how it works.
You need to start studying, and not Berkley nonsense.
I suppose I'm supposed to believe you didn't make the same spelling error that is so common when it comes to people who spell Berkeley incorrectly because they spell it the way it sounds, but I really have to wonder. Especially since you always seem to think yourself and your thinking infallible. Now even top universities thrown under the bus of all you know better. This about how spelling it "Berkley" is a way to insult the liberal bastion is also a new one on me. Never heard that one before, or seen it anywhere with the conservative bastion that might be so inclined to promote such foolishness. But okay, whatever you say...
What is truly absurd is the manner in which you describe my position, or how evolution is understood to work. Of course everything we need for life is in space. My word how you DO go on with yourself! Mr. Strawman extraordinaire.
I don't see much point in playing the quien sabe mas game, when all you need do is research how life began and send me the proof from other than your back end, as to who has proven what to be true. It's not me creating the mystery for the love of have mercy! I've been reading/learning all manner of theories, facts and history about the effort to unravel the mystery of how life began since I was old enough to read about such things. If you want to suggest you know better in a way that proves what you think you know, besides what we all know about basic high school chemistry, then by all means, please, how about something other than your simple say so?
With all due respect, your claim to know is duly noted, and I appreciate your comments about this mystery, but I would all the more really appreciate what I have otherwise never been able to find from any official, reputable, scientific source. Send me the link to the source of the scientist(s) who claim to know and have proven how life began. That would be a real treat for me! Otherwise, I'll file your comment here in the "ALL MIRCEA THINKS HE KNOWS" file.
Emergent properties explain nothing. They simply report what is observed to happen, NOT why it happens. Your hypotheses explain how whatever does exist functions NOT how or why it exists.
and if information, which is immaterial, creates complex information, which produces life where did the information come from? Information as well as the laws that govern the universe are immaterial yet we see how that which is immaterial causes effects in the universe.
Again, the immaterial comes from the material.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Sorry Harry but I am dammed if I do and dammed if I don't. When I just tell people what someone says I am accused of taking things out of context or getting my information only from Christian sites so I started posting the links or videos to where the info can be found and now I am being asked not to.
So what's a guy to do? continue to be misrepresented by some or post the links and videos, which not only shows where I get my info but also show others how I am being misrepresented by some on this forum.
Due to corona, my wife is staying with my brother, so I have to work, cook, shop, clean, and look after my youngest daughter. So I do not have time to watch videos.
I disagree Harry as I do see evidence for that which is immaterial having effect on the material. Information, laws, consciousness etc.
So as these immaterial things have an effect on the material universe a hypothesis can be made for an spirit or immaterial God having effect on the material universe.
Your response is irrelevant to my post, but of course the immaterial effects us. But it always comes from a material source.
Do you have one example of a thought existing without a brain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Has it? you still have not proven the laws are material and not immaterial and as the laws are immaterial and have effects that can be seen in the universe, I would say so far it has always been immaterial causes.
Yes, for over 2000 years, the science has always been natural forces, never a god did it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) can't stand to read some posts.
