Organic molecules make up half of Comet 67P

[Gronk]

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/12/comet-67p
Organic molecules make up half of Comet 67P

Today, in a study published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, the Rosetta team added onto the space probe’s already impressive
legacy, finding that organic molecules make up about half of the dust
emitted by Comet 67P. “Rosetta's comet thus belongs to the most
carbon-rich bodies we know in the solar system,” said co-author Oliver
Stenzel in a press release.



http://www.mps.mpg.de/Rosetta-A-Comet-s-List-of-Ingredients
Rosetta: A Comet’s List of Ingredients
For the first time, researchers from the COSIMA team present a
quantitative analysis of which chemical elements make up comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/469/Suppl_2/S712/4670835
Carbon-rich dust in comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko measured by COSIMA/Rosetta

[Andrew]

There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Post by Gronk
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/12/comet-67p
Organic molecules make up half of Comet 67P
Today, in a study published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, the Rosetta team added onto the space probe’s
already impressive legacy, finding that organic molecules make up about half of the dust emitted by Comet 67P. “Rosetta's comet
thus belongs to the most carbon-rich bodies we know in the solar system,” said co-author Oliver Stenzel in a press release.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/Rosetta-A-Comet-s-List-of-Ingredients
Rosetta: A Comet’s List of Ingredients
For the first time, researchers from the COSIMA team present a quantitative analysis of which chemical elements make up comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/469/Suppl_2/S712/4670835
Carbon-rich dust in comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko measured by COSIMA/Rosetta

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

There is evidence of complex organic molecules, including amino acids,
nucleotides, other phosphates, and their predecessors in space. That proves
these molecules are abundant and easily formed.

The next question is put these in water, add moderate energy from the sun or
geothermal vents, and what are the likely products of their collisions?

All cells are bags of lipid bilayers. Enough lipids in water naturally form
bilayer bags. How likely are lipids to form and run into each other?

Currently there is no evidence for or against spontaneous life. It's unlikely we
will ever be able to prove that either way on Earth.

A god could have started the universe and its processes knowing that somewhere
life would arise spontaneously. That still make life a creation of the god, but
an indirect creation. Why do you call that heretical?

[Kevrob]

Post by Siri Cruise
A god could have started the universe and its processes knowing that somewhere
life would arise spontaneously. That still make life a creation of the god, but
an indirect creation. Why do you call that heretical?

In fact, many religions do not insist on the Genesis account of creation
of life ex nihilo, and are perfectly fine with the idea of their ghod as
an author of natural law, who set things in motion and let them take their
course. Said natural law could easily include what would look like
abiogenesis to skeptics, and any installation of "souls" in beings
evolved centuries or millennia later would be considered the act of
"special creation."

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Of course, these believers are not "young earth creationists," which
probably means the aren't biblical literalists. It is biblical literalism
that drives the YEC's version of intelligent design. It is not a
scientific position that yields an interest in searching for a creating
intelligence. It is a believer trying to reconcile what they already
take as fact with the observed universe, however much those two views
may seem to be in conflict.

Kevin R

[TheRealMccoy]

Alpha helix amino acids are cleaved by the great solvator, water

[Atlatl Axolotl]

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 11:24:46 AM UTC-7, TheRealMccoy wrote:
.> Alpha helix amino acids are cleaved by the great solvator, water

There is no such thing as an "alpha helix amino acid"

There are alpha helices in in some proteins, which are composed, as all proteins
are, of amino acids.

Proteins are stable in water, although water can disrupt the helical structure.
Is that what you're saying?


Aa

[Cloud Hobbit]

There is no such thing as an "alpha helix amino acid"

There are alpha helices in in some proteins, which are composed, as all proteins
are, of amino acids.

Proteins are stable in water, although water can disrupt the helical structure.
Is that what you're saying?
__________

He doesn't know or he just made it up. Nothing TRM ever says has any basis in reality. Remember, this is a guy who claims he has been in a flying saucer that dropped nukes on the earth.

He's troll whose sole reason for being here is to be an annoying asshole.

He has that in common with Andrew and some others.

[TheRealMccoy]

Bullshit.
I am traveling and do not have access to a computer to search and put tons of studies on this topic in here right now, and I havent slept, when I get access to a computer again I will bury you on this topic idiot
Will be on I 70 en route to st George
In four hours or so

[TheRealMccoy]

If science had created a lifeform cell it would have been all over the news bigger than your cloned sheep story

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
There is no such thing as an "alpha helix amino acid"
There are alpha helices in in some proteins, which are composed, as all proteins
are, of amino acids.
Proteins are stable in water, although water can disrupt the helical structure.
Is that what you're saying?
__________

.> He doesn't know or he just made it up. Nothing TRM ever says has any basis in reality. Remember, this is a guy who claims he has been in a flying saucer that dropped nukes on the earth.

That said, I actually think he's brighter than a bunch of others here.

But yeah, he does just look things up and then make posts like that.

AA

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
He's troll whose sole reason for being here is to be an annoying asshole.
He has that in common with Andrew and some others.

[Gronk]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

There is evidence of complex organic molecules, including amino acids,
nucleotides, other phosphates, and their predecessors in space. That proves
these molecules are abundant and easily formed.

Amino acids found on a comet back in 2009

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first-amino-acid-on-a-comet/

[Andrew]

Post by Gronk

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

There is evidence of complex organic molecules, including amino acids,
nucleotides, other phosphates, and their predecessors in space. That proves
these molecules are abundant and easily formed.

Amino acids found on a comet back in 2009
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first-amino-acid-on-a-comet/

You can assemble all the amino acids you want right here on Earth.

They do not assemble themselves into biological proteins of living
things.

Why? Because here in the real world -->it doesn't work that way.

THIS is how a biological protein is assembled from amino acids.

-->

It is really amazing.

-->

[Gronk]

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

There is evidence of complex organic molecules, including amino acids,
nucleotides, other phosphates, and their predecessors in space. That proves
these molecules are abundant and easily formed.

Amino acids found on a comet back in 2009
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first-amino-acid-on-a-comet/

You can assemble all the amino acids you want right here on Earth.
They do not assemble themselves into biological proteins of living
things.
Why? Because here in the real world -->it doesn't work that way.
THIS is how a biological protein is assembled from amino acids.
--> http://youtu.be/lpb5s2F1pyM
It is really amazing.
--> http://youtu.be/suN-sV0cT6c

This planet is already teaming with life that would be competition.

[Andrew]

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

There is evidence of complex organic molecules, including amino acids,
nucleotides, other phosphates, and their predecessors in space. That proves
these molecules are abundant and easily formed.

Amino acids found on a comet back in 2009
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first-amino-acid-on-a-comet/

You can assemble all the amino acids you want right here on Earth.
They do not assemble themselves into biological proteins of living
things. Why? Because here in the real world -->it doesn't work that
way.
THIS is how a biological protein is assembled from amino acids.
--> http://youtu.be/lpb5s2F1pyM
It is really amazing.
--> http://youtu.be/suN-sV0cT6c

This planet is already teaming with life that would be competition.

Go to any planet you want. This is how biological
proteins are synthesized from amino acids.

--> http://youtu.be/lpb5s2F1pyM

It's the only way. You may speculate a different
mechanism, but it would be..such a mechanism.

[Gronk]

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

There is evidence of complex organic molecules, including amino acids,
nucleotides, other phosphates, and their predecessors in space. That proves
these molecules are abundant and easily formed.

Amino acids found on a comet back in 2009
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first-amino-acid-on-a-comet/

You can assemble all the amino acids you want right here on Earth.
They do not assemble themselves into biological proteins of living
things. Why? Because here in the real world -->it doesn't work that way.
THIS is how a biological protein is assembled from amino acids.
--> http://youtu.be/lpb5s2F1pyM
It is really amazing.
--> http://youtu.be/suN-sV0cT6c

This planet is already teaming with life that would be competition.

Go to any planet you want. This is how biological proteins are synthesized
from amino acids.
--> http://youtu.be/lpb5s2F1pyM
It's the only way. You may speculate a different mechanism, but it would
be..such a mechanism.

Which changes nothing.

[Andrew]

Post by Gronk

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

There is evidence of complex organic molecules, including amino acids,
nucleotides, other phosphates, and their predecessors in space. That proves
these molecules are abundant and easily formed.

Amino acids found on a comet back in 2009
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first-amino-acid-on-a-comet/

You can assemble all the amino acids you want right here on Earth.
They do not assemble themselves into biological proteins of living
things. Why? Because here in the real world -->it doesn't work that way.
THIS is how a biological protein is assembled from amino acids.
--> http://youtu.be/lpb5s2F1pyM
It is really amazing.
--> http://youtu.be/suN-sV0cT6c

This planet is already teaming with life that would be competition.

Go to any planet you want. This is how biological proteins are synthesized
from amino acids.
--> http://youtu.be/lpb5s2F1pyM
It's the only way. You may speculate a different mechanism, but it would
be..such a mechanism.

Which changes nothing.

Nothing from the fact that living things are made up of proteins,
and biological proteins are synthesized only within a mechanism
that has been specifically designed for them to do so. That is an
established fact of molecular biology, which is positive evidence
for a Creator.

[Teresita]

Post by Andrew
Nothing from the fact that living things are made up of proteins,
and biological proteins are synthesized only within a mechanism
that has been specifically designed for them to do so. That is an
established fact of molecular biology, which is positive evidence
for a Creator.

Ah, yes, the ol' irreducible complexity ploy. That's refuted by the
Mullerian Two Step, which I will describe below:

Imagine there is a small river in the mountains marked by boulders and
debris from falling trees. Now imagine that at one place a rolling
stone finds a stable position on the left bank. That’s one mutation.
Later, another rolling stone finds a stable position on the right bank
opposite the first one. That’s the second mutation. Still later, a
third rolling stone happens to settle in between the two . By a series
of three single steps, completely random, we now have a useful “organ”
in the form of a kind of primitive bridge. It is possible to cross the
stream at that location by hopping along the three stones.
Statistically, such an arrangement of three stones in a line, though
rare, is bound to happen.

Now imagine that a log floating in the river reaches these three stones
and becomes wedged against them. So we have two bridges existing
side-by-side, but the log bridge is better than the stone bridge because
people don’t have to risk their neck jumping from one stone to another.
This is a mutation that results in an improvement to the “organ”.
Travelers end up preferring the log to the stones, and their many
crossings depress the ends of the log into the river bank, making it
very secure.

Now imagine that the river flowing under the log washes the three stones
away one after the other, leaving only the log. Many generations later,
people come out and admire this Cadillac of a bridge and remark that it
must have had a bridge maker. It couldn’t possibly have formed by
chance, because even if one end of the log happened to wedge in a
riverbank by chance, the other end would be bent by the stream and the
whole log would have swept away. The bridge would be offered by
proponents of the Intelligent Bridgemaker as an example of irreducible
complexity, and yet, as was shown, the real history of the bridge was a
series of single steps, made by nature entirely by chance, but
reinforced by the improvements made to its fitness as a bridge.

[aaa]

Post by Teresita

Post by Andrew
Nothing from the fact that living things are made up of proteins,
and biological proteins are synthesized only within a mechanism
that has been specifically designed for them to do so. That is an
established fact of molecular biology, which is positive evidence
for a Creator.

Ah, yes, the ol' irreducible complexity ploy. That's refuted by the
Imagine there is a small river in the mountains marked by boulders and
debris from falling trees. Now imagine that at one place a rolling
stone finds a stable position on the left bank. That’s one mutation.
Later, another rolling stone finds a stable position on the right bank
opposite the first one. That’s the second mutation. Still later, a
third rolling stone happens to settle in between the two . By a series
of three single steps, completely random, we now have a useful “organ”
in the form of a kind of primitive bridge. It is possible to cross the
stream at that location by hopping along the three stones.
Statistically, such an arrangement of three stones in a line, though
rare, is bound to happen.
Now imagine that a log floating in the river reaches these three stones
and becomes wedged against them. So we have two bridges existing
side-by-side, but the log bridge is better than the stone bridge because
people don’t have to risk their neck jumping from one stone to another.
This is a mutation that results in an improvement to the “organ”.
Travelers end up preferring the log to the stones, and their many
crossings depress the ends of the log into the river bank, making it
very secure.
Now imagine that the river flowing under the log washes the three stones
away one after the other, leaving only the log. Many generations later,
people come out and admire this Cadillac of a bridge and remark that it
must have had a bridge maker. It couldn’t possibly have formed by
chance, because even if one end of the log happened to wedge in a
riverbank by chance, the other end would be bent by the stream and the
whole log would have swept away. The bridge would be offered by
proponents of the Intelligent Bridgemaker as an example of irreducible
complexity, and yet, as was shown, the real history of the bridge was a
series of single steps, made by nature entirely by chance, but
reinforced by the improvements made to its fitness as a bridge.

That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen in
this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics. A beneficial DNA
change(mutation) can only happen with reduced entropy. A reduced entropy
means a concentration of energy in an environment of dissipating energy.
It goes against the normal energy flow under the second law of thermal
dynamics. For your imagination to actually happen in nature, you have to
prove that the energy in nature is capable of concentrating instead of
dissipating all by itself.

It's nothing but someone's pipe dream with absolutely no understanding
of the basic scientific law.

[Teresita]

Post by aaa
That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen in
this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics.

First figure out how to properly spell the law, then get back to me when
you understand what it means.

[aaa]

Post by Teresita

Post by aaa
That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen in
this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics.

First figure out how to properly spell the law, then get back to me when
you understand what it means.

Not really. My understanding of the second law has been well tested the
last time I was here. How nice of you to ignore the rest of what I said
that actually does demonstrate my understanding of the second law in a
plain and simple way.

[Atlatl Axolotl]

.> > That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen in
.> > this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics.
.> First figure out how to properly spell the law, then get back to me when
.> you understand what it means.

Teresita, assuming you're relatively new here, I might offer a bit
of advice, to wit: don't.

"aaa" sports a mix of cluelessness and stubbornness that even
Earl could only admire. He's Duke cubed, minus (for the most part) the insults.

You will never ever ever get him to admit you're right.

About anything.


AA

[aaa]

..> > That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen in
..> > this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics.
..> First figure out how to properly spell the law, then get back to me when
..> you understand what it means.
Teresita, assuming you're relatively new here, I might offer a bit
of advice, to wit: don't.
"aaa" sports a mix of cluelessness and stubbornness that even
Earl could only admire. He's Duke cubed, minus (for the most part) the insults.
You will never ever ever get him to admit you're right.
About anything.
AA

Really. I don't remember I have talked to you the last time I was here.
Is that a new handle? but never mind, I do have a bad memory.

With exchanges like this, I have nothing to worry no matter what you
say. She doesn't seem to recognize my simple understanding of the second
law anyway. How terrible must it be for someone who can talk about the
second law with all the scientific jargons but can't really understand
the second law with plain English.

:-)

[Teresita]

She doesn't seem to recognize my simple understanding of the second law
anyway. How terrible must it be for someone who can talk about the
second law with all the scientific jargons but can't really understand
the second law with plain English.

I don't understand the plain English version of the second law of what?
Oh, right, "thermal dynamics".

[Don Martin]

Post by Teresita

She doesn't seem to recognize my simple understanding of the second law
anyway. How terrible must it be for someone who can talk about the
second law with all the scientific jargons but can't really understand
the second law with plain English.

I don't understand the plain English version of the second law of what?
Oh, right, "thermal dynamics".

You have to admit, though, that his "understandings" are indeed
simple, usually to the point of imbecility.

[Cloud Hobbit]

You have to admit, though, that his "understandings" are indeed
simple, usually to the point of imbecility.


That's just your blind denial.

You need to lose half your brain and unread the bible and every biology book you have ever read so you can obtain his simple understanding.

[Teresita]

Post by Don Martin

Post by Teresita

She doesn't seem to recognize my simple understanding of the second law
anyway. How terrible must it be for someone who can talk about the
second law with all the scientific jargons but can't really understand
the second law with plain English.

I don't understand the plain English version of the second law of what?
Oh, right, "thermal dynamics".

You have to admit, though, that his "understandings" are indeed
simple, usually to the point of imbecility.

Every day I see the exact same arguments on Twitter. Evolution always
makes life more complex, and the second law forbids increasing
complexity. Really. Tell it to the Kiwi bird who is descended from T-Rex.

[aaa]

Post by Teresita

She doesn't seem to recognize my simple understanding of the second law
anyway. How terrible must it be for someone who can talk about the
second law with all the scientific jargons but can't really understand
the second law with plain English.

I don't understand the plain English version of the second law of what?
Oh, right, "thermal dynamics".

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm sure my amateur status can be
confirmed without doubt by now.

:-)

[Andrew]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> > That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen in
.> > this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics.
.> First figure out how to properly spell the law, then get back
.> to me when you understand what it means.
Teresita, assuming you're relatively new here, I might offer a
bit of advice, to wit: don't.
"aaa" sports a mix of cluelessness and stubbornness that even
Earl could only admire. He's Duke cubed, minus (for the most
part) the insults.
You will never ever ever get him to admit you're right.

Did you think Teresita's scenario is "right"? If so, then explain
what it has to do with protein synthesis, which was the context.

Please.

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by Andrew

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> > That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen in
.> > this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics.
.> First figure out how to properly spell the law, then get back
.> to me when you understand what it means.

.> > Teresita, assuming you're relatively new here, I might offer a
.> > bit of advice, to wit: don't.
.> > "aaa" sports a mix of cluelessness and stubbornness that even
.> > Earl could only admire. He's Duke cubed, minus (for the most
.> > part) the insults.
.> > You will never ever ever get him to admit you're right.
.> Did you think Teresita's scenario is "right"? If so, then explain
.> what it has to do with protein synthesis, which was the context.

The particular topic at hand is irrelevant to what I said -- several
hundred wasted posts on my part -- including many attempting to straighten
him out on "thermal dynamics" -- taught me that any attempts to discuss
anything with "aaa" are an utter waste of time.

And that was my point.

Doubly so, I might add, given that he's perfectly capable of
cranking out forty or more posts a day.


AA

Post by Andrew
Please.

[aaa]

Post by Andrew

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> > That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen in
.> > this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics.
.> First figure out how to properly spell the law, then get back
.> to me when you understand what it means.

..> > Teresita, assuming you're relatively new here, I might offer a
..> > bit of advice, to wit: don't.
..> > "aaa" sports a mix of cluelessness and stubbornness that even
..> > Earl could only admire. He's Duke cubed, minus (for the most
..> > part) the insults.
..> > You will never ever ever get him to admit you're right.
..> Did you think Teresita's scenario is "right"? If so, then explain
..> what it has to do with protein synthesis, which was the context.
The particular topic at hand is irrelevant to what I said -- several
hundred wasted posts on my part -- including many attempting to straighten
him out on "thermal dynamics" -- taught me that any attempts to discuss
anything with "aaa" are an utter waste of time.

Now I remember you. Sorry I did not include you with those regulars
because you are such technocrat. Do you want to revive the debate?

And that was my point.
Doubly so, I might add, given that he's perfectly capable of
cranking out forty or more posts a day.
AA

Post by Andrew
Please.

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by aaa

Post by Andrew

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> > That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen in
.> > this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics.
.> First figure out how to properly spell the law, then get back
.> to me when you understand what it means.

..> > Teresita, assuming you're relatively new here, I might offer a
..> > bit of advice, to wit: don't.
..> > "aaa" sports a mix of cluelessness and stubbornness that even
..> > Earl could only admire. He's Duke cubed, minus (for the most
..> > part) the insults.
..> > You will never ever ever get him to admit you're right.
..> Did you think Teresita's scenario is "right"? If so, then explain
..> what it has to do with protein synthesis, which was the context.

.> > The particular topic at hand is irrelevant to what I said -- several
.> > hundred wasted posts on my part -- including many attempting to straighten
.> > him out on "thermal dynamics" -- taught me that any attempts to discuss
.> > anything with "aaa" are an utter waste of time.
.> Now I remember you. Sorry I did not include you with those regulars
.> because you are such technocrat.

If by "technocrat", you mean "understands basic science", then yes,
I am.

So, obviously, is Teresita.


.> Do you want to revive the debate?

Take a guess...


AA

Post by aaa

And that was my point.
Doubly so, I might add, given that he's perfectly capable of
cranking out forty or more posts a day.
AA

Post by Andrew
Please.

--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

[aaa]

Post by aaa

Post by Andrew

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> > That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen in
.> > this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics.
.> First figure out how to properly spell the law, then get back
.> to me when you understand what it means.

..> > Teresita, assuming you're relatively new here, I might offer a
..> > bit of advice, to wit: don't.
..> > "aaa" sports a mix of cluelessness and stubbornness that even
..> > Earl could only admire. He's Duke cubed, minus (for the most
..> > part) the insults.
..> > You will never ever ever get him to admit you're right.
..> Did you think Teresita's scenario is "right"? If so, then explain
..> what it has to do with protein synthesis, which was the context.

..> > The particular topic at hand is irrelevant to what I said -- several
..> > hundred wasted posts on my part -- including many attempting to straighten
..> > him out on "thermal dynamics" -- taught me that any attempts to discuss
..> > anything with "aaa" are an utter waste of time.
..> Now I remember you. Sorry I did not include you with those regulars
..> because you are such technocrat.
If by "technocrat", you mean "understands basic science", then yes,
I am.
So, obviously, is Teresita.

There is no doubt about that, but we are not just talking about basic
science, are we? We are talking about life also. Life is not a
scientific object. Life is a philosophical subject. It's not an
inanimate object. It's a living entity capable to rule over the physical
world. So how do you plan to explain the living entity with your
knowledge of the inanimate objects of the physical world?

The reason I have to ask you this is that it's exactly what the
evolutionary biologists pretend to do. They are actually trying to
explain a philosophical subject scientifically, and they are proud of
it. Can you see the irony here?

..> Do you want to revive the debate?
Take a guess...

No, thanks. I'm not really interested in science actually. I would like
to talk about philosophy because it's greater than science.

AA

Post by aaa

And that was my point.
Doubly so, I might add, given that he's perfectly capable of
cranking out forty or more posts a day.
AA

Post by Andrew
Please.

--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

[Teresita]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Teresita, assuming you're relatively new here, I might offer a bit
of advice, to wit: don't.
"aaa" sports a mix of cluelessness and stubbornness that even
Earl could only admire. He's Duke cubed, minus (for the most part) the insults.

As with Duke, I'm not actually addressing the trolls directly. My posts
are part of the atheist fabric of alt.atheism. Sort of a foreground
against the trollish background.

[Atlatl Axolotl]

.> > Teresita, assuming you're relatively new here, I might offer a bit
.> > of advice, to wit: don't.
.> > "aaa" sports a mix of cluelessness and stubbornness that even
.> > Earl could only admire. He's Duke cubed, minus (for the most part) the insults.
.> As with Duke, I'm not actually addressing the trolls directly. My posts
.> are part of the atheist fabric of alt.atheism. Sort of a foreground
.> against the trollish background.

I'm taking that approach with aaa/bbb/nunian this time around too --
I wasted far too many hundred posts pointing out mere reality to
him last time around.



AA

[duke]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 18:22:17 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> > Teresita, assuming you're relatively new here, I might offer a bit
.> > of advice, to wit: don't.
.> > "aaa" sports a mix of cluelessness and stubbornness that even
.> > Earl could only admire. He's Duke cubed, minus (for the most part) the insults.
.> As with Duke, I'm not actually addressing the trolls directly. My posts
.> are part of the atheist fabric of alt.atheism. Sort of a foreground
.> against the trollish background.
I'm taking that approach with aaa/bbb/nunian this time around too --
I wasted far too many hundred posts pointing out mere reality to
him last time around.

You're still not making any sense.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[duke]

Post by Teresita

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Teresita, assuming you're relatively new here, I might offer a bit
of advice, to wit: don't.
"aaa" sports a mix of cluelessness and stubbornness that even
Earl could only admire. He's Duke cubed, minus (for the most part) the insults.

Oh hecky darn.

Post by Teresita
As with Duke, I'm not actually addressing the trolls directly. My posts
are part of the atheist fabric of alt.atheism. Sort of a foreground
against the trollish background.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Siri Cruise]

Post by aaa
this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics. A beneficial DNA
change(mutation) can only happen with reduced entropy. A reduced entropy
means a concentration of energy in an environment of dissipating energy.

Focus sunlight with a magnifying glass on your Barbie doll.

[aaa]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by aaa
this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics. A beneficial DNA
change(mutation) can only happen with reduced entropy. A reduced entropy
means a concentration of energy in an environment of dissipating energy.

Focus sunlight with a magnifying glass on your Barbie doll.

Thanks for such intelligent and ingenious design. Why didn't I think of
that? Did you get this by sheer chance?

:-)

[Peter Pan]

Post by aaa

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by aaa
this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics. A beneficial DNA
change(mutation) can only happen with reduced entropy. A reduced entropy
means a concentration of energy in an environment of dissipating energy.

Focus sunlight with a magnifying glass on your Barbie doll.

Thanks for such intelligent and ingenious design. Why didn't I think of
that? Did you get this by sheer chance?
:-)

Burned Barbies are the gold standard in irreducible
complexity.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Peter Pan

Post by aaa

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by aaa
this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics. A beneficial DNA
change(mutation) can only happen with reduced entropy. A reduced entropy
means a concentration of energy in an environment of dissipating energy.

Focus sunlight with a magnifying glass on your Barbie doll.

Thanks for such intelligent and ingenious design. Why didn't I think of
that? Did you get this by sheer chance?
:-)

Burned Barbies are the gold standard in irreducible
complexity.

The concentration of energy on plastics is where DNA and ribosomes come from.

[aaa]

Post by Peter Pan

Post by aaa

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by aaa
this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics. A beneficial DNA
change(mutation) can only happen with reduced entropy. A reduced entropy
means a concentration of energy in an environment of dissipating energy.

Focus sunlight with a magnifying glass on your Barbie doll.

Thanks for such intelligent and ingenious design. Why didn't I think of
that? Did you get this by sheer chance?
:-)

Burned Barbies are the gold standard in irreducible
complexity.

That's a rather crude understanding that is no better than without
understanding. Let me give you a hint. The magnifying glass is, in fact,
an ingenious design, is it not?

[Peter Pan]

Post by aaa

Post by Teresita

Post by Andrew
Nothing from the fact that living things are made up of proteins,
and biological proteins are synthesized only within a mechanism
that has been specifically designed for them to do so. That is an
established fact of molecular biology, which is positive evidence
for a Creator.

Ah, yes, the ol' irreducible complexity ploy. That's refuted by the
Imagine there is a small river in the mountains marked by boulders and
debris from falling trees. Now imagine that at one place a rolling
stone finds a stable position on the left bank. That’s one mutation.
Later, another rolling stone finds a stable position on the right bank
opposite the first one. That’s the second mutation. Still later, a
third rolling stone happens to settle in between the two . By a series
of three single steps, completely random, we now have a useful “organ”
in the form of a kind of primitive bridge. It is possible to cross the
stream at that location by hopping along the three stones.
Statistically, such an arrangement of three stones in a line, though
rare, is bound to happen.
Now imagine that a log floating in the river reaches these three stones
and becomes wedged against them. So we have two bridges existing
side-by-side, but the log bridge is better than the stone bridge because
people don’t have to risk their neck jumping from one stone to another.
This is a mutation that results in an improvement to the “organ”.
Travelers end up preferring the log to the stones, and their many
crossings depress the ends of the log into the river bank, making it
very secure.
Now imagine that the river flowing under the log washes the three stones
away one after the other, leaving only the log. Many generations later,
people come out and admire this Cadillac of a bridge and remark that it
must have had a bridge maker. It couldn’t possibly have formed by
chance, because even if one end of the log happened to wedge in a
riverbank by chance, the other end would be bent by the stream and the
whole log would have swept away. The bridge would be offered by
proponents of the Intelligent Bridgemaker as an example of irreducible
complexity, and yet, as was shown, the real history of the bridge was a
series of single steps, made by nature entirely by chance, but
reinforced by the improvements made to its fitness as a bridge.

That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen in
this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics.

Hey, niunian. It's good to see you back, you old goat...
the other kooks just aren't of your caliber.

I thought you had been sent to a chicom re-education
camp. Do you still have your mindless faith intact? Have
you found any treatment for your neural injuries yet?

Are "thermal dynamics" like long johns getting it on with
each other?

Post by aaa
A beneficial DNA
change(mutation) can only happen with reduced entropy. A reduced entropy
means a concentration of energy in an environment of dissipating energy.

Wow! You finally realize now that beneficial mutations
are mutations. That's a step forward.

By the way, good mutations and bad mutations are equally
exotropic. Just because i said so. No one has yet to
find anything wrong in my understanding of that. HTH.

Post by aaa
It goes against the normal energy flow under the second law of thermal
dynamics. For your imagination to actually happen in nature, you have to
prove that the energy in nature is capable of concentrating instead of
dissipating all by itself.
It's nothing but someone's pipe dream with absolutely no understanding
of the basic scientific law.

I hate to tell you, but imagination has been happening in
nature for zillions of years. And things you can't even
imagine happen too.

All the same, we're lucky we have you to dispense your
deep understanding of the basic scientific law.

We've been waiting for you to answer this: When you take
a a ball on a string and swing it around your head, does
the ball rotate?

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Peter Pan
Are "thermal dynamics" like long johns getting it on with
each other?

Jumpin Jack Flashdance!

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by Peter Pan

Post by aaa

Post by Teresita

Post by Andrew
Nothing from the fact that living things are made up of proteins,
and biological proteins are synthesized only within a mechanism
that has been specifically designed for them to do so. That is an
established fact of molecular biology, which is positive evidence
for a Creator.

Ah, yes, the ol' irreducible complexity ploy. That's refuted by the
Imagine there is a small river in the mountains marked by boulders and
debris from falling trees. Now imagine that at one place a rolling
stone finds a stable position on the left bank. That’s one mutation.
Later, another rolling stone finds a stable position on the right bank
opposite the first one. That’s the second mutation. Still later, a
third rolling stone happens to settle in between the two . By a series
of three single steps, completely random, we now have a useful “organ”
in the form of a kind of primitive bridge. It is possible to cross the
stream at that location by hopping along the three stones.
Statistically, such an arrangement of three stones in a line, though
rare, is bound to happen.
Now imagine that a log floating in the river reaches these three stones
and becomes wedged against them. So we have two bridges existing
side-by-side, but the log bridge is better than the stone bridge because
people don’t have to risk their neck jumping from one stone to another.
This is a mutation that results in an improvement to the “organ”.
Travelers end up preferring the log to the stones, and their many
crossings depress the ends of the log into the river bank, making it
very secure.
Now imagine that the river flowing under the log washes the three stones
away one after the other, leaving only the log. Many generations later,
people come out and admire this Cadillac of a bridge and remark that it
must have had a bridge maker. It couldn’t possibly have formed by
chance, because even if one end of the log happened to wedge in a
riverbank by chance, the other end would be bent by the stream and the
whole log would have swept away. The bridge would be offered by
proponents of the Intelligent Bridgemaker as an example of irreducible
complexity, and yet, as was shown, the real history of the bridge was a
series of single steps, made by nature entirely by chance, but
reinforced by the improvements made to its fitness as a bridge.

That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen in
this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics.

.> Hey, niunian.

And don't forget "bbb".

AA

.> It's good to see you back, you old goat...
.> the other kooks just aren't of your caliber.

Post by Peter Pan
I thought you had been sent to a chicom re-education
camp. Do you still have your mindless faith intact? Have
you found any treatment for your neural injuries yet?
Are "thermal dynamics" like long johns getting it on with
each other?

Post by aaa
A beneficial DNA
change(mutation) can only happen with reduced entropy. A reduced entropy
means a concentration of energy in an environment of dissipating energy.

Wow! You finally realize now that beneficial mutations
are mutations. That's a step forward.
By the way, good mutations and bad mutations are equally
exotropic. Just because i said so. No one has yet to
find anything wrong in my understanding of that. HTH.

Post by aaa
It goes against the normal energy flow under the second law of thermal
dynamics. For your imagination to actually happen in nature, you have to
prove that the energy in nature is capable of concentrating instead of
dissipating all by itself.
It's nothing but someone's pipe dream with absolutely no understanding
of the basic scientific law.

I hate to tell you, but imagination has been happening in
nature for zillions of years. And things you can't even
imagine happen too.
All the same, we're lucky we have you to dispense your
deep understanding of the basic scientific law.
We've been waiting for you to answer this: When you take
a a ball on a string and swing it around your head, does
the ball rotate?

[aaa]

Post by Peter Pan

Post by aaa

Post by Teresita

Post by Andrew
Nothing from the fact that living things are made up of proteins,
and biological proteins are synthesized only within a mechanism
that has been specifically designed for them to do so. That is an
established fact of molecular biology, which is positive evidence
for a Creator.

Ah, yes, the ol' irreducible complexity ploy. That's refuted by the
Imagine there is a small river in the mountains marked by boulders and
debris from falling trees. Now imagine that at one place a rolling
stone finds a stable position on the left bank. That’s one mutation.
Later, another rolling stone finds a stable position on the right bank
opposite the first one. That’s the second mutation. Still later, a
third rolling stone happens to settle in between the two . By a series
of three single steps, completely random, we now have a useful “organ”
in the form of a kind of primitive bridge. It is possible to cross the
stream at that location by hopping along the three stones.
Statistically, such an arrangement of three stones in a line, though
rare, is bound to happen.
Now imagine that a log floating in the river reaches these three stones
and becomes wedged against them. So we have two bridges existing
side-by-side, but the log bridge is better than the stone bridge because
people don’t have to risk their neck jumping from one stone to another.
This is a mutation that results in an improvement to the “organ”.
Travelers end up preferring the log to the stones, and their many
crossings depress the ends of the log into the river bank, making it
very secure.
Now imagine that the river flowing under the log washes the three stones
away one after the other, leaving only the log. Many generations later,
people come out and admire this Cadillac of a bridge and remark that it
must have had a bridge maker. It couldn’t possibly have formed by
chance, because even if one end of the log happened to wedge in a
riverbank by chance, the other end would be bent by the stream and the
whole log would have swept away. The bridge would be offered by
proponents of the Intelligent Bridgemaker as an example of irreducible
complexity, and yet, as was shown, the real history of the bridge was a
series of single steps, made by nature entirely by chance, but
reinforced by the improvements made to its fitness as a bridge.

That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen in
this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics.

Hey, niunian. It's good to see you back, you old goat...
the other kooks just aren't of your caliber.

I don't think so. I think most people here do know what they are talking
about. I simply refuse to be distracted by the atheist tactics. Stay
focused is the key in a usenet debate. Everything else is secondary.

Post by Peter Pan
I thought you had been sent to a chicom re-education
camp. Do you still have your mindless faith intact? Have
you found any treatment for your neural injuries yet?
Are "thermal dynamics" like long johns getting it on with
each other?

Post by aaa
A beneficial DNA
change(mutation) can only happen with reduced entropy. A reduced entropy
means a concentration of energy in an environment of dissipating energy.

Wow! You finally realize now that beneficial mutations
are mutations. That's a step forward.

Not really. That's a step backward from where I stand.

Post by Peter Pan
By the way, good mutations and bad mutations are equally
exotropic. Just because i said so. No one has yet to
find anything wrong in my understanding of that. HTH.

Not really. A beneficial DNA change is a creation of new order that
accomplishes a specific purpose to benefit life. It can't be compared
with any kind of random DNA destruction. The word "mutation" only
reflects the utter ignorance of the evolutionary biologist and nothing else.

Post by Peter Pan

Post by aaa
It goes against the normal energy flow under the second law of thermal
dynamics. For your imagination to actually happen in nature, you have to
prove that the energy in nature is capable of concentrating instead of
dissipating all by itself.
It's nothing but someone's pipe dream with absolutely no understanding
of the basic scientific law.

I hate to tell you, but imagination has been happening in
nature for zillions of years. And things you can't even
imagine happen too.
All the same, we're lucky we have you to dispense your
deep understanding of the basic scientific law.
We've been waiting for you to answer this: When you take
a a ball on a string and swing it around your head, does
the ball rotate?

Sorry. I don't really understand the question. What exactly do you plan
to accomplish with it? I don't do mental gymnastics. I'm sure you will
have a lot more fun talking with a real philosopher instead.

[Peter Pan]

Post by Peter Pan

Post by aaa

Post by Teresita

Post by Andrew
Nothing from the fact that living things are made up of proteins,
and biological proteins are synthesized only within a mechanism
that has been specifically designed for them to do so. That is an
established fact of molecular biology, which is positive evidence
for a Creator.

Ah, yes, the ol' irreducible complexity ploy. That's refuted by the
Imagine there is a small river in the mountains marked by boulders and
debris from falling trees. Now imagine that at one place a rolling
stone finds a stable position on the left bank. That’s one mutation.
Later, another rolling stone finds a stable position on the right bank
opposite the first one. That’s the second mutation. Still later, a
third rolling stone happens to settle in between the two . By a series
of three single steps, completely random, we now have a useful “organ”
in the form of a kind of primitive bridge. It is possible to cross the
stream at that location by hopping along the three stones.
Statistically, such an arrangement of three stones in a line, though
rare, is bound to happen.
Now imagine that a log floating in the river reaches these three stones
and becomes wedged against them. So we have two bridges existing
side-by-side, but the log bridge is better than the stone bridge because
people don’t have to risk their neck jumping from one stone to another.
This is a mutation that results in an improvement to the “organ”.
Travelers end up preferring the log to the stones, and their many
crossings depress the ends of the log into the river bank, making it
very secure.
Now imagine that the river flowing under the log washes the three stones
away one after the other, leaving only the log. Many generations later,
people come out and admire this Cadillac of a bridge and remark that it
must have had a bridge maker. It couldn’t possibly have formed by
chance, because even if one end of the log happened to wedge in a
riverbank by chance, the other end would be bent by the stream and the
whole log would have swept away. The bridge would be offered by
proponents of the Intelligent Bridgemaker as an example of irreducible
complexity, and yet, as was shown, the real history of the bridge was a
series of single steps, made by nature entirely by chance, but
reinforced by the improvements made to its fitness as a bridge.

That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen in
this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics.

Hey, niunian. It's good to see you back, you old goat...
the other kooks just aren't of your caliber.

I don't think so. I think most people here do know what they are talking about.

I wasn't talking about most people. I was talking about
you and your peers. You have always been more
entertaining, to me, than duke or A7 or the Andrews.

I simply refuse to be distracted by the atheist tactics. Stay
focused is the key in a usenet debate. Everything else is secondary.

If you find it so difficult to focus, why do you come to
an atheist newsgroup? Have you won any converts yet? Do
you expect to reap your tares this time around?

Duke claimed he once converted 5,000 souls per day. Do
you think you can match that?

Post by Peter Pan
I thought you had been sent to a chicom re-education
camp. Do you still have your mindless faith intact? Have
you found any treatment for your neural injuries yet?
Are "thermal dynamics" like long johns getting it on with
each other?

Post by aaa
A beneficial DNA
change(mutation) can only happen with reduced entropy. A reduced entropy
means a concentration of energy in an environment of dissipating energy.

Wow! You finally realize now that beneficial mutations
are mutations. That's a step forward.

Not really. That's a step backward from where I stand.

No, that's what you said right above. In the past you
have denied that mutations even happen.

Post by Peter Pan
By the way, good mutations and bad mutations are equally
exotropic. Just because i said so. No one has yet to
find anything wrong in my understanding of that. HTH.

Not really.

Really!

Post by Peter Pan
We've been waiting for you to answer this: When you take
a a ball on a string and swing it around your head, does
the ball rotate?

Sorry. I don't really understand the question. What exactly do you plan
to accomplish with it? I don't do mental gymnastics. I'm sure you will
have a lot more fun talking with a real philosopher instead.

It's a simple question. Is the ball rotating?
If you don't know, then you don't know... altho that
never stopped you before.

[aaa]

Post by Peter Pan

Post by Peter Pan

Post by aaa

Post by Teresita

Post by Andrew
Nothing from the fact that living things are made up of proteins,
and biological proteins are synthesized only within a mechanism
that has been specifically designed for them to do so. That is an
established fact of molecular biology, which is positive evidence
for a Creator.

Ah, yes, the ol' irreducible complexity ploy. That's refuted by the
Imagine there is a small river in the mountains marked by boulders and
debris from falling trees. Now imagine that at one place a rolling
stone finds a stable position on the left bank. That’s one mutation.
Later, another rolling stone finds a stable position on the right bank
opposite the first one. That’s the second mutation. Still later, a
third rolling stone happens to settle in between the two . By a series
of three single steps, completely random, we now have a useful “organ”
in the form of a kind of primitive bridge. It is possible to cross the
stream at that location by hopping along the three stones.
Statistically, such an arrangement of three stones in a line, though
rare, is bound to happen.
Now imagine that a log floating in the river reaches these three stones
and becomes wedged against them. So we have two bridges existing
side-by-side, but the log bridge is better than the stone bridge because
people don’t have to risk their neck jumping from one stone to another.
This is a mutation that results in an improvement to the “organ”.
Travelers end up preferring the log to the stones, and their many
crossings depress the ends of the log into the river bank, making it
very secure.
Now imagine that the river flowing under the log washes the three stones
away one after the other, leaving only the log. Many generations later,
people come out and admire this Cadillac of a bridge and remark that it
must have had a bridge maker. It couldn’t possibly have formed by
chance, because even if one end of the log happened to wedge in a
riverbank by chance, the other end would be bent by the stream and the
whole log would have swept away. The bridge would be offered by
proponents of the Intelligent Bridgemaker as an example of irreducible
complexity, and yet, as was shown, the real history of the bridge was a
series of single steps, made by nature entirely by chance, but
reinforced by the improvements made to its fitness as a bridge.

That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen in
this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics.

Hey, niunian. It's good to see you back, you old goat...
the other kooks just aren't of your caliber.

I don't think so. I think most people here do know what they are talking about.

I wasn't talking about most people. I was talking about
you and your peers. You have always been more
entertaining, to me, than duke or A7 or the Andrews.

Same difference. I don't have to list names. I think they do know what
they are talking about, but their attackers don't.

Post by Peter Pan

I simply refuse to be distracted by the atheist tactics. Stay
focused is the key in a usenet debate. Everything else is secondary.

If you find it so difficult to focus, why do you come to
an atheist newsgroup? Have you won any converts yet? Do
you expect to reap your tares this time around?
Duke claimed he once converted 5,000 souls per day. Do
you think you can match that?

Staying focused is an important part of my personal practice. I'm not
interested in winning converts. I'm interested in learning knowledge
with a focused mind through usenet debate.

Post by Peter Pan

Post by Peter Pan
I thought you had been sent to a chicom re-education
camp. Do you still have your mindless faith intact? Have
you found any treatment for your neural injuries yet?
Are "thermal dynamics" like long johns getting it on with
each other?

Post by aaa
A beneficial DNA
change(mutation) can only happen with reduced entropy. A reduced entropy
means a concentration of energy in an environment of dissipating energy.

Wow! You finally realize now that beneficial mutations
are mutations. That's a step forward.

Not really. That's a step backward from where I stand.

No, that's what you said right above. In the past you
have denied that mutations even happen.

I only deny the use of the word "mutation". I don't deny what it's
referring to. I think it's a misnomer.

Post by Peter Pan

Post by Peter Pan
By the way, good mutations and bad mutations are equally
exotropic. Just because i said so. No one has yet to
find anything wrong in my understanding of that. HTH.

Not really.

Really!

No.

Post by Peter Pan

Post by Peter Pan
We've been waiting for you to answer this: When you take
a a ball on a string and swing it around your head, does
the ball rotate?

Sorry. I don't really understand the question. What exactly do you plan
to accomplish with it? I don't do mental gymnastics. I'm sure you will
have a lot more fun talking with a real philosopher instead.

It's a simple question. Is the ball rotating?
If you don't know, then you don't know... altho that
never stopped you before.

I still don't see your point if there is any.

[Teresita]

Post by aaa
That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen in
this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics. A beneficial DNA
change(mutation) can only happen with reduced entropy.

How does the second law of thermal dynamics know a change is going to be
beneficial before it's even expressed as proteins? Does the DNA
suddenly sport a halo? Does the DNA of a bad change suddenly sport horns?

[Atlatl Axolotl]

.> > That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen in
.> > this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics. A beneficial DNA
.> > change(mutation) can only happen with reduced entropy.
.> How does the second law of thermal dynamics know a change is going to be
.> beneficial before it's even expressed as proteins? Does the DNA
.> suddenly sport a halo? Does the DNA of a bad change suddenly sport horns?

That does appear to be the problem: the scientifically inclined
here have been arguing on the basis of "thermodynamics", not
realizing that the field in question was actually "thermal dynamics".

Thermal Dynamics (n. archaic) . -- a school of mysticism that
arose in China during the Han dynasty. Until recently historians
assumed that it had vanished, as advances in astronomy,
mechanics, and mathematics during the period overshadowed the
Thermal Dynamic approach to ontology, which relied purely on attempting
to ascertain the nature of the world using only personal intuition,
and rejecting all "false teachings", including the insights of the
biological and physical sciences.

However Thermal Dynamics reappeared during the early 21st century,
along with other esoteric cults such as Falun Gong, the Unification Church,
and the Guanyin Method. Alhough its adherents appear to be limited to
a handful, these have published countless screeds. In spite of that,
it appears to be gaining little to no foothold in the empirical sciences.


AA

[aaa]

Post by Teresita

Post by aaa
That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen in
this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics. A beneficial DNA
change(mutation) can only happen with reduced entropy.

How does the second law of thermal dynamics know a change is going to be
beneficial before it's even expressed as proteins? Does the DNA
suddenly sport a halo? Does the DNA of a bad change suddenly sport horns?

In a way, yes. The beneficial change has to be an order creation
process. It goes against the normal energy flow regulated by the second
law. It can only happen under the locally reduced entropy.

Therefore, if a DNA change is the result of reduced entropy, it will
always be a beneficial change. If the DNA change is the result of
increased entropy, it will always be a non-beneficial random change.

It has to do with the energy flow. The random change obeys the normal
energy flow. The beneficial change moves against the energy flow.
Figuratively speaking, the beneficial change is like the sailing boat
moving upstream. The random change is like the falling leaves moving
downstream.

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by aaa

Post by Teresita

Post by aaa
That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen
in this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics. A
beneficial DNA change(mutation) can only happen with reduced
entropy.

How does the second law of thermal dynamics know a change is going to
be beneficial before it's even expressed as proteins? Does the DNA
suddenly sport a halo? Does the DNA of a bad change suddenly sport horns?

In a way, yes. The beneficial change has to be an order creation
process. It goes against the normal energy flow regulated by the
second law. It can only happen under the locally reduced entropy.
Therefore, if a DNA change is the result of reduced entropy, it will
always be a beneficial change. If the DNA change is the result of
increased entropy, it will always be a non-beneficial random change.
It has to do with the energy flow. The random change obeys the normal
energy flow. The beneficial change moves against the energy flow.
Figuratively speaking, the beneficial change is like the sailing boat
moving upstream. The random change is like the falling leaves moving
downstream.

Are you just making this stuff as you
go along or is it something you read from
a creationist site?

[Teresita]

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by aaa

Post by Teresita

Post by aaa
That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen
in this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics. A
beneficial DNA change(mutation) can only happen with reduced
entropy.

How does the second law of thermal dynamics know a change is going to
be beneficial before it's even expressed as proteins? Does the DNA
suddenly sport a halo? Does the DNA of a bad change suddenly sport horns?

In a way, yes. The beneficial change has to be an order creation
process. It goes against the normal energy flow regulated by the
second law. It can only happen under the locally reduced entropy.

Are you just making this stuff as you
go along or is it something you read from
a creationist site?

I suspect he's making it up, but in any event, he's wrong, because the
mutation on the DNA strand is only the first step in a process that
involves translation to RNA, then transcription to proteins, then
operation of the whole modified organism in the niche, before it can be
determined if the change is harmful or beneficial. Triple-A is
asserting the second law of thermal dynamics knows the change is going
to be harmful before it's even play-tested.

[aaa]

Post by Teresita

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by aaa

Post by Teresita

Post by aaa
That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen
in this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics. A
beneficial DNA change(mutation) can only happen with reduced
entropy.

How does the second law of thermal dynamics know a change is going to
be beneficial before it's even expressed as proteins? Does the DNA
suddenly sport a halo? Does the DNA of a bad change suddenly sport horns?

In a way, yes. The beneficial change has to be an order creation
process. It goes against the normal energy flow regulated by the
second law. It can only happen under the locally reduced entropy.

Are you just making this stuff as you
go along or is it something you read from
a creationist site?

I suspect he's making it up, but in any event, he's wrong, because the
mutation on the DNA strand is only the first step in a process that
involves translation to RNA, then transcription to proteins, then
operation of the whole modified organism in the niche, before it can be
determined if the change is harmful or beneficial. Triple-A is
asserting the second law of thermal dynamics knows the change is going
to be harmful before it's even play-tested.

Yes. You are exactly right. I know nothing about the details, but I'm
sure the DNA change has to happen in a consistently energy building up
environment in order to be beneficial. It requires the local energy
preservation in order to establish its new order.

[Tim]

Post by aaa

Post by Teresita

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by aaa

Post by Teresita

Post by aaa
That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen
in this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics. A
beneficial DNA change(mutation) can only happen with reduced
entropy.

How does the second law of thermal dynamics know a change is going to
be beneficial before it's even expressed as proteins? Does the DNA
suddenly sport a halo? Does the DNA of a bad change suddenly sport horns?

In a way, yes. The beneficial change has to be an order creation
process. It goes against the normal energy flow regulated by the
second law. It can only happen under the locally reduced entropy.

Are you just making this stuff as you
go along or is it something you read from
a creationist site?

I suspect he's making it up, but in any event, he's wrong, because the
mutation on the DNA strand is only the first step in a process that
involves translation to RNA, then transcription to proteins, then
operation of the whole modified organism in the niche, before it can be
determined if the change is harmful or beneficial. Triple-A is
asserting the second law of thermal dynamics knows the change is going
to be harmful before it's even play-tested.

Yes. You are exactly right. I know nothing about the details, but I'm
sure

You can't be sure, since you don't know the details.

the DNA change has to happen in a consistently energy building up

Post by aaa
environment in order to be beneficial. It requires the local energy
preservation in order to establish its new order.

That's just more word salad.

[aaa]

Post by Tim

Post by aaa

Post by Teresita

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by aaa

Post by Teresita

Post by aaa
That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen
in this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics. A
beneficial DNA change(mutation) can only happen with reduced
entropy.

How does the second law of thermal dynamics know a change is going to
be beneficial before it's even expressed as proteins? Does the DNA
suddenly sport a halo? Does the DNA of a bad change suddenly sport horns?

In a way, yes. The beneficial change has to be an order creation
process. It goes against the normal energy flow regulated by the
second law. It can only happen under the locally reduced entropy.

Are you just making this stuff as you
go along or is it something you read from
a creationist site?

I suspect he's making it up, but in any event, he's wrong, because the
mutation on the DNA strand is only the first step in a process that
involves translation to RNA, then transcription to proteins, then
operation of the whole modified organism in the niche, before it can be
determined if the change is harmful or beneficial. Triple-A is
asserting the second law of thermal dynamics knows the change is going
to be harmful before it's even play-tested.

Yes. You are exactly right. I know nothing about the details, but I'm
sure

You can't be sure, since you don't know the details.
the DNA change has to happen in a consistently energy building up

Post by aaa
environment in order to be beneficial. It requires the local energy
preservation in order to establish its new order.

That's just more word salad.

The local energy preservation simply means the energy is not used to
increase exergy or entropy but to establish the new DNA change. The
energy should be preserved in the DNA.

[aaa]

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by aaa

Post by Teresita

Post by aaa
That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen
in this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics. A
beneficial DNA change(mutation) can only happen with reduced
entropy.

How does the second law of thermal dynamics know a change is going to
be beneficial before it's even expressed as proteins? Does the DNA
suddenly sport a halo? Does the DNA of a bad change suddenly sport horns?

In a way, yes. The beneficial change has to be an order creation
process. It goes against the normal energy flow regulated by the
second law. It can only happen under the locally reduced entropy.
Therefore, if a DNA change is the result of reduced entropy, it will
always be a beneficial change. If the DNA change is the result of
increased entropy, it will always be a non-beneficial random change.
It has to do with the energy flow. The random change obeys the normal
energy flow. The beneficial change moves against the energy flow.
Figuratively speaking, the beneficial change is like the sailing boat
moving upstream. The random change is like the falling leaves moving
downstream.

Are you just making this stuff as you
go along or is it something you read from
a creationist site?

I don't read. I can barely keep up with you guys' posts, and I have to
check my grammar before I post anything. How can I have time to read
anything else? Everything I say is my own understanding. I don't think
you can find it anywhere else on the web. In fact, I don't even know
what a creationist site looks like.

[Teresita]

Post by aaa
I don't read. I can barely keep up with you guys' posts, and I have to
check my grammar before I post anything.

I'm so glad we have someone of your academic caliber here to offer your
teachings.

[aaa]

Post by Teresita

Post by aaa
I don't read. I can barely keep up with you guys' posts, and I have to
check my grammar before I post anything.

I'm so glad we have someone of your academic caliber here to offer your
teachings.

I feel so inadequate and sorry.

:-)

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by aaa

Post by Teresita

Post by aaa
That's nothing but your wishful imagination that will never happen
in this universe under the second law of thermal dynamics. A
beneficial DNA change(mutation) can only happen with reduced
entropy.

How does the second law of thermal dynamics know a change is going to
be beneficial before it's even expressed as proteins? Does the DNA
suddenly sport a halo? Does the DNA of a bad change suddenly sport horns?

In a way, yes. The beneficial change has to be an order creation
process. It goes against the normal energy flow regulated by the
second law. It can only happen under the locally reduced entropy.
Therefore, if a DNA change is the result of reduced entropy, it will
always be a beneficial change. If the DNA change is the result of
increased entropy, it will always be a non-beneficial random change.
It has to do with the energy flow. The random change obeys the normal
energy flow. The beneficial change moves against the energy flow.
Figuratively speaking, the beneficial change is like the sailing boat
moving upstream. The random change is like the falling leaves moving
downstream.

/> Are you just making this stuff as you
/> go along or is it something you read from
/> a creationist site?

Well, put it this way: you're talking about someone who firmly
told me, regarding a beneficial point mutation -- substituting one single
base for another at a single locus:

"a change of single amino acids has to be based on an
entirely new design for the entire DNA code. It's the same as the
computer programs. The new program has to be recompiled. It can't copy
from the old program. The improved DNA code is not just a simple copying
mistake. It has to be based on an entirely new design to replace the
previous one."

I believe that answers your question?


AA

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

Post by aaa
Therefore, if a DNA change is the result of reduced entropy, it will
always be a beneficial change. If the DNA change is the result of
increased entropy, it will always be a non-beneficial random change.

Given it's random and the result is random why wouldn't an abundant
energy supply make either one randomly beneficial. The inefficient
change may be supported by seemingly endless energy and thus allow that
change to overwhelm the more efficient when there is no lack of energy
or a reason to be efficient.

When it comes to life it seems like absolutes are NOT real except at the
beginning when eternity ends... and at the end of life where eternity
begins again.
--
That's Karma


*Rumination*
Elizabeth "Pocahontas" Warren wants FREE COLLEGE for everyone... so
what will they do when they graduate into Pocahontas's economy and they
can't get a job to use that education and the regulations prevent them
from starting their own business. Looks like they will be the most
educated generation of *FOOD* *STAMP* recipients in history.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Teresita
Ah, yes, the ol' irreducible complexity ploy. That's refuted by the
Statistically, such an arrangement of three stones in a line, though
rare, is bound to happen.

You need to compute the probability to make claims like that. An expectation
that this occurs once a decade, most rivers will have this. And expectation that
this occurs once a billion years, and the river will be buried or flooded before
it happens.

Applied to abiogenesis you get vague handwaving non-mathematical claims that
it's too improbable it's impossible, or it's so probable it's a necessity. Until
you can compute the probabilities, math and its probability theory are usesless
to you.

Chemistry is simpler than biology. It might be possible to compute the
probabilities of the significant reactions. I've heard of no reputable claims of
doing so this in biology.

[Gronk]

Post by Teresita

Post by Andrew
Nothing from the fact that living things are made up of proteins,
and biological proteins are synthesized only within a mechanism
that has been specifically designed for them to do so. That is an
established fact of molecular biology, which is positive evidence
for a Creator.

Ah, yes, the ol' irreducible complexity ploy. That's refuted by the
Imagine there is a small river in the mountains marked by boulders and
debris from falling trees. Now imagine that at one place a rolling stone
finds a stable position on the left bank. That’s one mutation. Later,
another rolling stone finds a stable position on the right bank opposite
the first one. That’s the second mutation. Still later, a third rolling
stone happens to settle in between the two . By a series of three single
steps, completely random, we now have a useful “organ” in the form of a
kind of primitive bridge. It is possible to cross the stream at that
location by hopping along the three stones. Statistically, such an
arrangement of three stones in a line, though rare, is bound to happen.
Now imagine that a log floating in the river reaches these three stones
and becomes wedged against them. So we have two bridges existing
side-by-side, but the log bridge is better than the stone bridge because
people don’t have to risk their neck jumping from one stone to another.
This is a mutation that results in an improvement to the “organ”.
Travelers end up preferring the log to the stones, and their many
crossings depress the ends of the log into the river bank, making it very
secure.
Now imagine that the river flowing under the log washes the three stones
away one after the other, leaving only the log. Many generations later,
people come out and admire this Cadillac of a bridge and remark that it
must have had a bridge maker. It couldn’t possibly have formed by
chance, because even if one end of the log happened to wedge in a
riverbank by chance, the other end would be bent by the stream and the
whole log would have swept away. The bridge would be offered by
proponents of the Intelligent Bridgemaker as an example of irreducible
complexity, and yet, as was shown, the real history of the bridge was a
series of single steps, made by nature entirely by chance, but reinforced
by the improvements made to its fitness as a bridge.

It gets worse for Andie.

https://www.wired.com/2009/01/replicatingrna/

LIFE MAKES MORE of itself.

And now so can a set of custom-designed chemicals. Chemists have shown
that a group of synthetic enzymes replicated, competed and evolved much
like a natural ecosystem, but without life or cells.

"So long as you provide the building blocks and the starter seed, it goes
forever," said Gerald Joyce, a chemist at the Scripps Research Institute
and co-author of the paper published Thursday in Science. "It is
immortalized molecular information."




http://www.nature.com/news/enzymes-grow-artificial-dna-1.10487
19 April 2012
Enzymes grow artificial DNA
Synthetic strands with different backbones replicate and evolve just like
the real thing.



http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/biotech/sdut-rna-world-origin-life-2016aug15-story.html

Gerald F. Joyce and David P. Horning report having produced an RNA enzyme
that both synthesizes complicated functional RNA molecules and replicates
simpler RNA molecules. This effort is quantitatively different from
earlier work that produced only simple RNA, Joyce said.

The evolved enzyme, called a ribozyme, was selected for its ability to
make functional RNA, but it cannot reproduce itself. Work toward that end
continues, Joyce said. Such a self-replicating molecule would meet the
essential criteria for life, he said.

Self-replicating RNA is hypothesized to have existing before DNA, which
carries the code of life in all living organisms. This "RNA world" is
thought to have given way to DNA billions of years ago. Its existence is
inferred from the properties of RNA, which acts both as a transmitter of
genetic information and an enzyme that can perform functions of some proteins.



http://www.nature.com/news/enzymes-grow-artificial-dna-1.10487
19 April 2012

[Ted]

Post by Gronk

Post by Teresita

Post by Andrew
Nothing from the fact that living things are made up of proteins,
and biological proteins are synthesized only within a mechanism
that has been specifically designed for them to do so. That is an
established fact of molecular biology, which is positive evidence
for a Creator.

Ah, yes, the ol' irreducible complexity ploy. That's refuted by the
Imagine there is a small river in the mountains marked by boulders and
debris from falling trees. Now imagine that at one place a rolling stone
finds a stable position on the left bank. That’s one mutation. Later,
another rolling stone finds a stable position on the right bank opposite
the first one. That’s the second mutation. Still later, a third rolling
stone happens to settle in between the two . By a series of three single
steps, completely random, we now have a useful “organ” in the form of a
kind of primitive bridge. It is possible to cross the stream at that
location by hopping along the three stones. Statistically, such an
arrangement of three stones in a line, though rare, is bound to happen.
Now imagine that a log floating in the river reaches these three stones
and becomes wedged against them. So we have two bridges existing
side-by-side, but the log bridge is better than the stone bridge because
people don’t have to risk their neck jumping from one stone to another.
This is a mutation that results in an improvement to the “organ”.
Travelers end up preferring the log to the stones, and their many
crossings depress the ends of the log into the river bank, making it very
secure.
Now imagine that the river flowing under the log washes the three stones
away one after the other, leaving only the log. Many generations later,
people come out and admire this Cadillac of a bridge and remark that it
must have had a bridge maker. It couldn’t possibly have formed by
chance, because even if one end of the log happened to wedge in a
riverbank by chance, the other end would be bent by the stream and the
whole log would have swept away. The bridge would be offered by
proponents of the Intelligent Bridgemaker as an example of irreducible
complexity, and yet, as was shown, the real history of the bridge was a
series of single steps, made by nature entirely by chance, but reinforced
by the improvements made to its fitness as a bridge.

It gets worse for Andie.
https://www.wired.com/2009/01/replicatingrna/
LIFE MAKES MORE of itself.
And now so can a set of custom-designed chemicals. Chemists have shown
that a group of synthetic enzymes replicated, competed and evolved much
like a natural ecosystem, but without life or cells.
"So long as you provide the building blocks and the starter seed, it goes
forever," said Gerald Joyce, a chemist at the Scripps Research Institute
and co-author of the paper published Thursday in Science. "It is
immortalized molecular information."
http://www.nature.com/news/enzymes-grow-artificial-dna-1.10487
19 April 2012
Enzymes grow artificial DNA
Synthetic strands with different backbones replicate and evolve just like the real thing.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/biotech/sdut-rna-world-origin-life-2016aug15-story.html
Gerald F. Joyce and David P. Horning report having produced an RNA enzyme
that both synthesizes complicated functional RNA molecules and replicates
simpler RNA molecules. This effort is quantitatively different from
earlier work that produced only simple RNA, Joyce said.
The evolved enzyme, called a ribozyme, was selected for its ability to
make functional RNA, but it cannot reproduce itself. Work toward that end
continues, Joyce said. Such a self-replicating molecule would meet the
essential criteria for life, he said.
Self-replicating RNA is hypothesized to have existing before DNA, which
carries the code of life in all living organisms. This "RNA world" is
thought to have given way to DNA billions of years ago. Its existence is
inferred from the properties of RNA, which acts both as a transmitter of
genetic information and an enzyme that can perform functions of some proteins.
http://www.nature.com/news/enzymes-grow-artificial-dna-1.10487
19 April 2012

How cool. Thanks for sharing that, Gronk.

[Andrew]

Post by Gronk

Post by Teresita

Post by Andrew
Nothing from the fact that living things are made up of proteins,
and biological proteins are synthesized only within a mechanism
that has been specifically designed for them to do so. That is an
established fact of molecular biology, which is positive evidence
for a Creator.

Ah, yes, the ol' irreducible complexity ploy. That's refuted by the
Imagine there is a small river in the mountains marked by boulders and
debris from falling trees. Now imagine that at one place a rolling stone
finds a stable position on the left bank. That’s one mutation. Later,
another rolling stone finds a stable position on the right bank opposite
the first one. That’s the second mutation. Still later, a third rolling
stone happens to settle in between the two . By a series of three single
steps, completely random, we now have a useful “organ” in the form of a
kind of primitive bridge. It is possible to cross the stream at that
location by hopping along the three stones. Statistically, such an
arrangement of three stones in a line, though rare, is bound to happen.
Now imagine that a log floating in the river reaches these three stones
and becomes wedged against them. So we have two bridges existing
side-by-side, but the log bridge is better than the stone bridge because
people don’t have to risk their neck jumping from one stone to another.
This is a mutation that results in an improvement to the “organ”.
Travelers end up preferring the log to the stones, and their many
crossings depress the ends of the log into the river bank, making it very
secure.
Now imagine that the river flowing under the log washes the three stones
away one after the other, leaving only the log. Many generations later,
people come out and admire this Cadillac of a bridge and remark that it
must have had a bridge maker. It couldn’t possibly have formed by
chance, because even if one end of the log happened to wedge in a
riverbank by chance, the other end would be bent by the stream and the
whole log would have swept away. The bridge would be offered by
proponents of the Intelligent Bridgemaker as an example of irreducible
complexity, and yet, as was shown, the real history of the bridge was a
series of single steps, made by nature entirely by chance, but reinforced
by the improvements made to its fitness as a bridge.

It gets worse for Andie.

No.

Post by Gronk
https://www.wired.com/2009/01/replicatingrna/
LIFE MAKES MORE of itself.
And now so can a set of custom-designed chemicals. Chemists
have shown that a group of synthetic enzymes replicated,
competed and evolved much like a natural ecosystem, but
without life or cells.
"So long as you provide the building blocks and the starter seed,
it goes forever," said Gerald Joyce, a chemist at the Scripps
Research Institute and co-author of the paper published Thursday
in Science. "It is immortalized molecular information."
http://www.nature.com/news/enzymes-grow-artificial-dna-1.10487
19 April 2012
Enzymes grow artificial DNA
Synthetic strands with different backbones replicate and evolve
just like the real thing.

"It’s miles and miles from being a synthetic life form,”
~ from the article

Post by Gronk
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/biotech/sdut-rna-world-origin-life-2016aug15-story.html
Gerald F. Joyce and David P. Horning report having produced an
RNA enzyme that both synthesizes complicated functional RNA
molecules and replicates simpler RNA molecules. This effort is
quantitatively different from earlier work that produced only
simple RNA, Joyce said.
The evolved enzyme, called a ribozyme, was selected for its ability
to make functional RNA, but it cannot reproduce itself. Work
toward that end continues, Joyce said. Such a self-replicating molecule
would meet the essential criteria for life, he said.
Self-replicating RNA is hypothesized to have existing before DNA,
which carries the code of life in all living organisms. This
"RNA world" is thought to have given way to DNA billions of years
ago. Its existence is inferred from the properties of RNA, which
acts both as a transmitter of genetic information and an enzyme that
can perform functions of some proteins.

"Scientists at The Scripps Research Institute say they have made
a major advance toward the goal of producing life through test-
tube evolution." ~ from the article


More evidence that life is *only* the result of having been-->*created*.

And that *the origin* of real life was--> Creation.

Which means there ~~really is~~ a Creator.

And that atheism is a deception.

And that our atheist friends
have been ~~ deceived ~~ .

[JTEM]

Ironically, this means that they're NOT
organic molecules. We've been misidentifying
them all along.

...reminds me of all the "Bird-Like
Dinosaurs" which lived before birds
evolved. Which means, yes, we got everything
backwards: It's "Dinosaur-like birds."












-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/169018722018

[hypatiab7]

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

You still haven't provided evidence that your god (whether material
or not) ever existed, Andyroo. You keep running away like a scared
puppy, yipping over your shoulder. You have no evidence. You only
have religious faith which is proof of nothing.

Post by Andrew
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Post by Gronk
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/12/comet-67p
Organic molecules make up half of Comet 67P
Today, in a study published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, the Rosetta team added onto the space probe’s
already impressive legacy, finding that organic molecules make up about half of the dust emitted by Comet 67P. “Rosetta's comet
thus belongs to the most carbon-rich bodies we know in the solar system,” said co-author Oliver Stenzel in a press release.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/Rosetta-A-Comet-s-List-of-Ingredients
Rosetta: A Comet’s List of Ingredients
For the first time, researchers from the COSIMA team present a quantitative analysis of which chemical elements make up comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/469/Suppl_2/S712/4670835
Carbon-rich dust in comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko measured by COSIMA/Rosetta

[Andrew]

Post by hypatiab7

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

You still haven't provided evidence that your god
(whether material or not) ever existed, Andyroo.

Evidence:

The entire created Universe with the life therein in all
of its perfection, wonder and beauty. The evidence has
been there all along.

Enjoy!

[John Locke]

Post by Andrew

Post by hypatiab7

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

You still haven't provided evidence that your god
(whether material or not) ever existed, Andyroo.

The entire created Universe with the life therein in all
of its perfection, wonder and beauty. The evidence has
been there all along.

...every university and research facility on the planet vehemently
disagrees with you and your delusional fundy cohorts. I'd think by now
you'd get the hint that there's something seriously haywire with your
"hypothesis".

Post by Andrew
Enjoy!

...we do...without demeaning nature by attributing the wonder of
nature's processes to some weird ass, imaginary god.

[hypatiab7]

Post by Andrew

Post by hypatiab7

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

You still haven't provided evidence that your god
(whether material or not) ever existed, Andyroo.

The entire created Universe with the life therein in all
of its perfection, wonder and beauty. The evidence has
been there all along.
Enjoy!

Evidence that something exists isn't necessarily evidence of how it came
into existence. What you hold as an explanation, we hold as a copout.

[Yap Honghor]

Post by Andrew

Post by hypatiab7

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

You still haven't provided evidence that your god
(whether material or not) ever existed, Andyroo.

The entire created Universe with the life therein in all
of its perfection, wonder and beauty. The evidence has
been there all along.

Your pixie could not even protect those dinosaurs from their extinction, let alone the lives in this universe.
What a creator you have....!!!

Post by Andrew
Enjoy!

[Gronk]

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a

Follow the links.

"we conclude that 67P particles are made of nearly 50 per cent organic
matter in mass"

Post by Andrew
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

Oh? Haven't heard of synthetic biology?

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/12/comet-67p
Organic molecules make up half of Comet 67P
Today, in a study published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, the Rosetta team added onto the space probe’s
already impressive legacy, finding that organic molecules make up about
half of the dust emitted by Comet 67P. “Rosetta's comet
thus belongs to the most carbon-rich bodies we know in the solar
system,” said co-author Oliver Stenzel in a press release.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/Rosetta-A-Comet-s-List-of-Ingredients
Rosetta: A Comet’s List of Ingredients
For the first time, researchers from the COSIMA team present a
quantitative analysis of which chemical elements make up comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/469/Suppl_2/S712/4670835
Carbon-rich dust in comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko measured by COSIMA/Rosetta

[Andrew]

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a

Follow the links.
"we conclude that 67P particles are made of nearly 50 per cent organic matter in mass"

Post by Andrew
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

Oh?

Again ---> *only God can create life*.

Post by Gronk
Haven't heard of synthetic biology?

That is attempting to program life, not *create* life.

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/12/comet-67p
Organic molecules make up half of Comet 67P
Today, in a study published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, the Rosetta team added onto the space probe’s
already impressive legacy, finding that organic molecules make up about
half of the dust emitted by Comet 67P. “Rosetta's comet
thus belongs to the most carbon-rich bodies we know in the solar
system,” said co-author Oliver Stenzel in a press release.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/Rosetta-A-Comet-s-List-of-Ingredients
Rosetta: A Comet’s List of Ingredients
For the first time, researchers from the COSIMA team present a
quantitative analysis of which chemical elements make up comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/469/Suppl_2/S712/4670835
Carbon-rich dust in comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko measured by COSIMA/Rosetta

Again ---> *only God can create life*.

He is most awesome. He is real.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a

Follow the links.
"we conclude that 67P particles are made of nearly 50 per cent organic matter in mass"

Post by Andrew
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

Oh?

Again ---> *only God can create life*.

Post by Gronk
Haven't heard of synthetic biology?

That is attempting to program life, not *create* life.

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/12/comet-67p
Organic molecules make up half of Comet 67P
Today, in a study published in Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical
Society, the Rosetta team added onto the space probe’s
already impressive legacy, finding that organic molecules make up about
half of the dust emitted by Comet 67P. “Rosetta's comet
thus belongs to the most carbon-rich bodies we know in the solar
system,” said co-author Oliver Stenzel in a press release.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/Rosetta-A-Comet-s-List-of-Ingredients
Rosetta: A Comet’s List of Ingredients
For the first time, researchers from the COSIMA team present a
quantitative analysis of which chemical elements make up comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/469/Suppl_2/S712/4670835
Carbon-rich dust in comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko measured by COSIMA/Rosetta

Again ---> *only God can create life*.

That is only one option.... there are a few more.

Believe the one you want believe.

[Peter Pan]

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a

Follow the links.
"we conclude that 67P particles are made of nearly 50 per cent organic matter in mass"

Post by Andrew
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

Oh?

Again ---> *only God can create life*.

You go, Andy! Give that sorry-ass strawman the
smackdown. Rip his head off and set him on fire. Make
him rue the day he was born.

That'll teach the unbelievers to fuck with you.

Post by Andrew
Again ---> *only God can create life*.

Nope, humans can figure that out too. Within a century,
it will be done. Write that on your calendar.

Post by Andrew
He is most awesome. He is real.

Your AC isn't very awesome. He must be ashamed of
something, the way he hides in the shadows.

'Course, if my servants were running around dispensing
such horseshit in my name, i'd be pretty embarrassed too.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Peter Pan
Nope, humans can figure that out too. Within a century,
it will be done. Write that on your calendar.

That's a statement of faith, not fact.

[Peter Pan]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Peter Pan
Nope, humans can figure that out too. Within a century,
it will be done. Write that on your calendar.

That's a statement of faith, not fact.

Similarly with the statement i was responding to, which
you disregarded.

As Andyroo would say, you can't prove i'm wrong.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Peter Pan

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Peter Pan
Nope, humans can figure that out too. Within a century,
it will be done. Write that on your calendar.

That's a statement of faith, not fact.

Similarly with the statement i was responding to, which
you disregarded.
As Andyroo would say, you can't prove i'm wrong.

That's the nature of faith.

[Andrew]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Peter Pan

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Peter Pan
Nope, humans can figure that out too. Within a century,
it will be done. Write that on your calendar.

That's a statement of faith, not fact.

Similarly with the statement i was responding to, which
you disregarded.
As Andyroo would say, you can't prove i'm wrong.

That's the nature of faith.

You obviously have more 'faith' than I do because my
position is based upon solid evidence. Whereas yours
is based on models that are dependent upon fantasy.


~ Andrew

[Peter Pan]

Post by Andrew

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Peter Pan

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Peter Pan
Nope, humans can figure that out too. Within a century,
it will be done. Write that on your calendar.

That's a statement of faith, not fact.

Similarly with the statement i was responding to, which
you disregarded.
As Andyroo would say, you can't prove i'm wrong.

That's the nature of faith.

You obviously have more 'faith' than I do because my
position is based upon solid evidence. Whereas yours
is based on models that are dependent upon fantasy.

Your position is that life can only be "created"
magically by a god(s). Your "evidence" that this
happened is your best-kept secret.

But, do tell us how science is all --->fantasy.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

Post by Peter Pan

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a

Follow the links.
"we conclude that 67P particles are made of nearly 50 per cent organic matter in mass"

Post by Andrew
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

Oh?

Again ---> *only God can create life*.

You go, Andy! Give that sorry-ass strawman the
smackdown. Rip his head off and set him on fire. Make
him rue the day he was born.
That'll teach the unbelievers to fuck with you.

Post by Andrew
Again ---> *only God can create life*.

Nope, humans can figure that out too. Within a century,
it will be done. Write that on your calendar.

Then we will be the Gods.... to that life.

[Peter Pan]

Post by #BeamMeUpScotty

Post by Peter Pan

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a

Follow the links.
"we conclude that 67P particles are made of nearly 50 per cent organic matter in mass"

Post by Andrew
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

Oh?

Again ---> *only God can create life*.

You go, Andy! Give that sorry-ass strawman the
smackdown. Rip his head off and set him on fire. Make
him rue the day he was born.
That'll teach the unbelievers to fuck with you.

Post by Andrew
Again ---> *only God can create life*.

Nope, humans can figure that out too. Within a century,
it will be done. Write that on your calendar.

Then we will be the Gods.... to that life.

Well, yes, maybe... but we will actually exist.

[Andrew]

Post by Peter Pan

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a

Follow the links.
"we conclude that 67P particles are made of nearly 50 per cent organic matter in mass"

Post by Andrew
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

Oh?

Again ---> *only God can create life*.

You go, Andy! Give that sorry-ass strawman the
smackdown. Rip his head off and set him on fire. Make
him rue the day he was born.
That'll teach the unbelievers to fuck with you.

Post by Andrew
Again ---> *only God can create life*.

Nope, humans can figure that out too.
Within a century, it will be done.

Again, affirming the truth of-->Creation.

Because that is the only way it happened.

[Peter Pan]

Post by Andrew

Post by Peter Pan

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a

Follow the links.
"we conclude that 67P particles are made of nearly 50 per cent organic matter in mass"

Post by Andrew
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

Oh?

Again ---> *only God can create life*.

You go, Andy! Give that sorry-ass strawman the
smackdown. Rip his head off and set him on fire. Make
him rue the day he was born.
That'll teach the unbelievers to fuck with you.

Post by Andrew
Again ---> *only God can create life*.

Nope, humans can figure that out too.
Within a century, it will be done.

Again, affirming the truth of-->Creation.
Because that is the only way it happened.

More Androolean --->fantasy.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Andrew
Again, affirming the truth of-->Creation.
Because that is the only way it happened.

Another statement of faith not fact.

[Andrew]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Andrew
Again, affirming the truth of-->Creation.
Because that is the only way it happened.

Another statement of faith not fact.

It's the ~only~ way.

If not, cite any non-fantasized model.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Andrew

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Andrew
Again, affirming the truth of-->Creation.
Because that is the only way it happened.

Another statement of faith not fact.

It's the ~only~ way.
If not, cite any non-fantasized model.

I'm willing to say I don't know and what for a better answer. There's nothing in
my life that demands an answer.

[Andrew]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Andrew

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Andrew
Again, affirming the truth of-->Creation.
Because that is the only way it happened.

Another statement of faith not fact.

It's the ~only~ way.
If not, cite any non-fantasized model.

I'm willing to say I don't know

Then the most logical thing to do would be
to go with the evidence. The preponderance
of which points to ~ Creation.

Post by Siri Cruise
and what for a better answer. There's nothing
in my life that demands an answer.

[Gronk]

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a

Follow the links.
"we conclude that 67P particles are made of nearly 50 per cent organic matter in mass"

Post by Andrew
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

Oh?

Again ---> *only God can create life*.

No evidence of that.

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk
Haven't heard of synthetic biology?

That is attempting to program life, not *create* life.

Wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_biology#Synthetic_life

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/12/comet-67p
Organic molecules make up half of Comet 67P
Today, in a study published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, the Rosetta team added onto the space probe’s
already impressive legacy, finding that organic molecules make up about
half of the dust emitted by Comet 67P. “Rosetta's comet
thus belongs to the most carbon-rich bodies we know in the solar
system,” said co-author Oliver Stenzel in a press release.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/Rosetta-A-Comet-s-List-of-Ingredients
Rosetta: A Comet’s List of Ingredients
For the first time, researchers from the COSIMA team present a
quantitative analysis of which chemical elements make up comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/469/Suppl_2/S712/4670835
Carbon-rich dust in comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko measured by COSIMA/Rosetta

Again ---> *only God can create life*.

No evidence of that.

Post by Andrew
He is most awesome. He is real.

No evidence of that.

[Andrew]

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a

Follow the links.
"we conclude that 67P particles are made of nearly 50 per cent organic matter in mass"

Post by Andrew
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

Oh?

Again ---> *only God can create life*.

No evidence of that.

Huh? Did you think I would say
such a thing without evidence?

Absolutely not.

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk
Haven't heard of synthetic biology?

That is attempting to program life, not *create* life.

Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_biology#Synthetic_life

The term "synthetic biology" encompasses "the idea
of" creating life, but it has never been accomplished.

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/12/comet-67p
Organic molecules make up half of Comet 67P
Today, in a study published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, the Rosetta team added onto the space probe’s
already impressive legacy, finding that organic molecules make up about
half of the dust emitted by Comet 67P. “Rosetta's comet
thus belongs to the most carbon-rich bodies we know in the solar
system,” said co-author Oliver Stenzel in a press release.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/Rosetta-A-Comet-s-List-of-Ingredients
Rosetta: A Comet’s List of Ingredients
For the first time, researchers from the COSIMA team present a
quantitative analysis of which chemical elements make up comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/469/Suppl_2/S712/4670835
Carbon-rich dust in comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko measured by COSIMA/Rosetta

Again ---> *only God can create life*.

No evidence of that.

There certainly is.

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew
He is most awesome. He is real.

No evidence of that.

That's what I have found.

[Gronk]

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a

Follow the links.
"we conclude that 67P particles are made of nearly 50 per cent organic
matter in mass"

Post by Andrew
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

Oh?

Again ---> *only God can create life*.

No evidence of that.

Huh? Did you think I would say
such a thing without evidence?
Absolutely not.

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk
Haven't heard of synthetic biology?

That is attempting to program life, not *create* life.

Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_biology#Synthetic_life

The term "synthetic biology" encompasses "the idea
of" creating life, but it has never been accomplished.

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/12/comet-67p
Organic molecules make up half of Comet 67P
Today, in a study published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, the Rosetta team added onto the space probe’s
already impressive legacy, finding that organic molecules make up about
half of the dust emitted by Comet 67P. “Rosetta's comet
thus belongs to the most carbon-rich bodies we know in the solar
system,” said co-author Oliver Stenzel in a press release.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/Rosetta-A-Comet-s-List-of-Ingredients
Rosetta: A Comet’s List of Ingredients
For the first time, researchers from the COSIMA team present a
quantitative analysis of which chemical elements make up comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/469/Suppl_2/S712/4670835
Carbon-rich dust in comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko measured by COSIMA/Rosetta

Again ---> *only God can create life*.

No evidence of that.

There certainly is.

You mean, there's evidence of breathing on dirt and making a male human?

Post by Andrew

Post by Gronk

Post by Andrew
He is most awesome. He is real.

No evidence of that.

That's what I have found.

No evidence? Good. You're learning.

[Pabst Blue Ribbon]

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

Computer viruses can reproduce. Can they be considered life?

Post by Andrew
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Post by Gronk
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/12/comet-67p
Organic molecules make up half of Comet 67P
Today, in a study published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, the Rosetta team added onto the space probe’s
already impressive legacy, finding that organic molecules make up about
half of the dust emitted by Comet 67P. “Rosetta's comet
thus belongs to the most carbon-rich bodies we know in the solar
system,” said co-author Oliver Stenzel in a press release.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/Rosetta-A-Comet-s-List-of-Ingredients
Rosetta: A Comet’s List of Ingredients
For the first time, researchers from the COSIMA team present a
quantitative analysis of which chemical elements make up comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/469/Suppl_2/S712/4670835
Carbon-rich dust in comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko measured by COSIMA/Rosetta

[Andrew]

Post by Pabst Blue Ribbon

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

Computer viruses can reproduce. Can they be considered life?

Living things are usually characterized as having the capacity
to grow, adapt, respond (to stimuli), metabolize, as well as to
reproduce.

Post by Pabst Blue Ribbon

Post by Andrew
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Post by Gronk
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/12/comet-67p
Organic molecules make up half of Comet 67P
Today, in a study published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, the Rosetta team added onto the space probe’s
already impressive legacy, finding that organic molecules make up about
half of the dust emitted by Comet 67P. “Rosetta's comet
thus belongs to the most carbon-rich bodies we know in the solar
system,” said co-author Oliver Stenzel in a press release.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/Rosetta-A-Comet-s-List-of-Ingredients
Rosetta: A Comet’s List of Ingredients
For the first time, researchers from the COSIMA team present a
quantitative analysis of which chemical elements make up comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/469/Suppl_2/S712/4670835
Carbon-rich dust in comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko measured by COSIMA/Rosetta

[Peter Pan]

Post by Andrew

Post by Pabst Blue Ribbon

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

Computer viruses can reproduce. Can they be considered life?

Living things are usually characterized as having the capacity
to grow, adapt, respond (to stimuli), metabolize, as well as to
reproduce.

Thank you for finally touching upon my question in
another thread about your definition of life.

So you have now abandoned your postulate of a "living
God", haven't you. The AC is a --->non-living entity.

[Andrew]

Post by Peter Pan

Post by Andrew

Post by Pabst Blue Ribbon

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

Computer viruses can reproduce. Can they be considered life?

Living things are usually characterized as having the capacity
to grow, adapt, respond (to stimuli), metabolize, as well as to
reproduce.

Thank you for finally touching upon my question in
another thread about your definition of life.
So you have now abandoned your postulate of a
"living God", haven't you.

No, because the characteristics of life (above) apply
to biological life. And God is not a "biological entity".

[Peter Pan]

Post by Andrew

Post by Peter Pan

Post by Andrew

Post by Pabst Blue Ribbon

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

Computer viruses can reproduce. Can they be considered life?

Living things are usually characterized as having the capacity
to grow, adapt, respond (to stimuli), metabolize, as well as to
reproduce.

Thank you for finally touching upon my question in
another thread about your definition of life.
So you have now abandoned your postulate of a
"living God", haven't you.

No, because the characteristics of life (above) apply
to biological life. And God is not a "biological entity".

You're really reaching, 'drooo.

Non-biological life is like a non-porcine pig.
Like non-radiative light.

Did you ever read the Grinch book where the Grinch builds
a darkhouse to cast a beam of darkness over all the land?
That's our Andy, casting his one candlepower of the
darkness of ignorance.

[Teresita]

Post by Peter Pan

Post by Andrew

Post by Pabst Blue Ribbon

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

Computer viruses can reproduce. Can they be considered life?

Living things are usually characterized as having the capacity
to grow, adapt, respond (to stimuli), metabolize, as well as to
reproduce.

Thank you for finally touching upon my question in
another thread about your definition of life.
So you have now abandoned your postulate of a "living God", haven't you.

No, because the characteristics of life (above) apply to biological
life. And God is not a "biological entity".

Words mean things. Only biological entities are living. Non-biological
entities are non-living. If your god is a non-biological entity, then
he is not a living god.

[Andrew]

Post by Teresita

Post by Peter Pan

Post by Andrew

Post by Pabst Blue Ribbon

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

Computer viruses can reproduce. Can they be considered life?

Living things are usually characterized as having the capacity
to grow, adapt, respond (to stimuli), metabolize, as well as to
reproduce.

Thank you for finally touching upon my question in
another thread about your definition of life.
So you have now abandoned your postulate of a "living God", haven't you.

No, because the characteristics of life (above) apply to biological
life. And God is not a "biological entity".

Words mean things. Only biological entities are living. Non-biological
entities are non-living. If your god is a non-biological entity, then
he is not a living god.

That's a good example of false logic and foolish reasoning.
And reveals the desperation of those who fight against the
truth.

~ Andrew

[Peter Pan]

Post by Andrew

Post by Teresita

Post by Peter Pan

Post by Andrew

Post by Pabst Blue Ribbon

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

Computer viruses can reproduce. Can they be considered life?

Living things are usually characterized as having the capacity
to grow, adapt, respond (to stimuli), metabolize, as well as to
reproduce.

Thank you for finally touching upon my question in
another thread about your definition of life.
So you have now abandoned your postulate of a "living God", haven't you.

No, because the characteristics of life (above) apply to biological
life. And God is not a "biological entity".

Words mean things. Only biological entities are living. Non-biological
entities are non-living. If your god is a non-biological entity, then
he is not a living god.

That's a good example of false logic and foolish reasoning.
And reveals the desperation of those who fight against the
truth.

That's our Andy -- declaring by fiat that all opposing
POVs are "false logic and foolish reasoning", then
turning tail to flee when asked to point out wherein lies
the defective logical step.

Sorry, Andy, what you are showing us is false logic and
foolish reasoning.

[Ted]

Post by Peter Pan

Post by Andrew

Post by Teresita

Post by Peter Pan

Post by Andrew

Post by Pabst Blue Ribbon

Post by Andrew
There is a big difference between carbon rich dust and a
living, reproducing organism. Only God can create life.

Computer viruses can reproduce. Can they be considered life?

Living things are usually characterized as having the capacity
to grow, adapt, respond (to stimuli), metabolize, as well as to
reproduce.

Thank you for finally touching upon my question in
another thread about your definition of life.
So you have now abandoned your postulate of a "living God", haven't you.

No, because the characteristics of life (above) apply to biological
life. And God is not a "biological entity".

Words mean things. Only biological entities are living. Non-biological
entities are non-living. If your god is a non-biological entity, then
he is not a living god.

That's a good example of false logic and foolish reasoning.
And reveals the desperation of those who fight against the
truth.

That's our Andy -- declaring by fiat that all opposing
POVs are "false logic and foolish reasoning", then
turning tail to flee when asked to point out wherein lies
the defective logical step.

It's what the liar does regularly. We can always count on him to run away.

Post by Peter Pan
Sorry, Andy, what you are showing us is false logic and
foolish reasoning.

[JTEM]

So nobody has found any life.

Okay. So I guess that Panspermia is
looking less & less likely...





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/global+warming/page/6