blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Mar 2, 2017 22:11:58 GMT
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Only God knows for sure who is saved and who is not. Who\What is God though? You don't know do you? You mad bro?
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Mar 2, 2017 22:13:49 GMT
Yup.
They can't get teleportation right without splicing themselves with flies!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 22:16:05 GMT
Scientists They think they know everything Truly, a statement that could only be made by somebody who has never spent any time at all actually talking to a scientist.
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Mar 2, 2017 22:18:56 GMT
Not as mad as you though, you bible bashing, homophobic, psycho, Jesus Freak!
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Mar 2, 2017 22:37:58 GMT
Is that demon imp you psycho, underfoot? That would be you, sodomite.
|
|
filmfan95
Sophomore
@filmfan95
Posts: 383
Likes: 141
|
Post by filmfan95 on Mar 2, 2017 22:59:58 GMT
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Only God knows for sure who is saved and who is not. Who\What is God though? You don't know do you? God is the guy that saved me. And I'm not homophobic or racist or anything like that. I love all people, regardless of their religion, race, orientation, political beliefs, etc. I have friends of all sorts, and we get along well, regardless of our differing beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 2, 2017 23:20:28 GMT
Yes I am for the most part but yours is not an answer. So, you really do think that 1. Biochemists are unaware of Pasteur's seminal experiments. 2. His experiments have relevance to current theories on abiogenesis. Do you have any idea what his experiments entailed? Of course I do. That's the kind of thing taught to 10 year olds How is 'abiogenesis' any different from what Pasteur refuted?
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on Mar 3, 2017 5:12:07 GMT
So, you really do think that 1. Biochemists are unaware of Pasteur's seminal experiments. 2. His experiments have relevance to current theories on abiogenesis. Do you have any idea what his experiments entailed? Of course I do. That's the kind of thing taught to 10 year olds How is 'abiogenesis' any different from what Pasteur refuted? In 1859, Pasteur showed that boiled (then cooled) broth will not spoil if deprived of access to microbes. In 1952, there was a famous chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions. The University of Chicago experiment confirmed the hypothesis that assumed conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors. In 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in the original experiments. That is considerably more than what was originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life. In other words, the 1859 and 1952 experiments addressed different questions. Pasteur showed that in present atmospheric conditions that living organisms do not arise from non-living predecessor material. The later experiment showed that amino acids can arise from the conditions of billions of years ago. Now, do you deny that the University of Chicago scientists (1952) were quite familiar with what Louis Pasteur had accomplished nine decades earlier?
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Mar 3, 2017 8:32:20 GMT
So, you really do think that 1. Biochemists are unaware of Pasteur's seminal experiments. 2. His experiments have relevance to current theories on abiogenesis. Do you have any idea what his experiments entailed? Of course I do. That's the kind of thing taught to 10 year olds How is 'abiogenesis' any different from what Pasteur refuted? Including 10 year old future Biochemists? Either you don't know what Pasteur's experiments entailed or you know nothing about current abiogenesis research. Here's a hint - one of them involves boiling some nutrient broth (to kill any microorganisms) and leaving it for a few days in a flask that is open to the air and one that isn't then seeing if anything grew in them. The other isn't. The hubris of some religious people is stunning, you really believe you know better about biochemistry than someone like Jack Szostak. Perhaps you should email and remind him about Pasteur's work, maybe in all the hard work and excitement of getting a Nobel Prize he forgot, molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 3, 2017 9:53:07 GMT
Of course I do. That's the kind of thing taught to 10 year olds How is 'abiogenesis' any different from what Pasteur refuted? Including 10 year old future Biochemists? Either you don't know what Pasteur's experiments entailed or you know nothing about current abiogenesis research. Here's a hint - one of them involves boiling some nutrient broth (to kill any microorganisms) and leaving it for a few days in a flask that is open to the air and one that isn't then seeing if anything grew in them. The other isn't. The hubris of some religious people is stunning, you really believe you know better about biochemistry than someone like Jack Szostak. Perhaps you should email and remind him about Pasteur's work, maybe in all the hard work and excitement of getting a Nobel Prize he forgot, molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/The time and effort you spent bitching could have been spent explaining why abiogenesis is different from superstition
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Mar 3, 2017 10:02:39 GMT
Including 10 year old future Biochemists? Either you don't know what Pasteur's experiments entailed or you know nothing about current abiogenesis research. Here's a hint - one of them involves boiling some nutrient broth (to kill any microorganisms) and leaving it for a few days in a flask that is open to the air and one that isn't then seeing if anything grew in them. The other isn't. The hubris of some religious people is stunning, you really believe you know better about biochemistry than someone like Jack Szostak. Perhaps you should email and remind him about Pasteur's work, maybe in all the hard work and excitement of getting a Nobel Prize he forgot, molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/The time and effort you spent bitching could have been spent explaining why abiogenesis is different from superstition Imagine what you could have achieved without all the time spent on the snarky bitching on forums like this. You could have looked up things like abiogenesis yourself!
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 3, 2017 10:21:57 GMT
The time and effort you spent bitching could have been spent explaining why abiogenesis is different from superstition Imagine what you could have achieved without all the time spent on the snarky bitching on forums like this. You could have looked up things like abiogenesis yourself! So you don't know either? I thought I was asking an expert, isn't Ruth one? But she would rather moan than tell me.
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Mar 3, 2017 10:30:21 GMT
Imagine what you could have achieved without all the time spent on the snarky bitching on forums like this. You could have looked up things like abiogenesis yourself! So you don't know either? I thought I was asking an expert, isn't Ruth one? But she would rather moan than tell me. Thats funny, I've could have sworn in the past you have said things along the lines of 'im not here to educate you, look it up yourself'
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 3, 2017 11:35:38 GMT
So you don't know either? I thought I was asking an expert, isn't Ruth one? But she would rather moan than tell me. Thats funny, I've could have sworn in the past you have said things along the lines of 'im not here to educate you, look it up yourself' No again, you are wrong as I have never said that. To one person who ignored my links I have said that I am not repeating myself so he can look it up, but that is obviously different.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 3, 2017 18:02:47 GMT
Including 10 year old future Biochemists? Either you don't know what Pasteur's experiments entailed or you know nothing about current abiogenesis research. Here's a hint - one of them involves boiling some nutrient broth (to kill any microorganisms) and leaving it for a few days in a flask that is open to the air and one that isn't then seeing if anything grew in them. The other isn't. The hubris of some religious people is stunning, you really believe you know better about biochemistry than someone like Jack Szostak. Perhaps you should email and remind him about Pasteur's work, maybe in all the hard work and excitement of getting a Nobel Prize he forgot, molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/The time and effort you spent bitching could have been spent explaining why abiogenesis is different from superstition Here's a basic summation: Pasteur with Spontaneous Generation: Proved that microorganisms didn't grow in a sterilized medium isolated from its environment (experimental group), but could appear in one open to its environment (control group), so that life wasn't arising from the material itself. Abiogenesis: Investigating the ways in which simple, organic compounds can combine to create fundamental elements of life (like RNA) in environments similar to early Earth in which life originally arose. The former has nothing to do with the latter. If anything, the former is one of the impetuses for the investigations of the latter.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 4, 2017 1:02:34 GMT
The time and effort you spent bitching could have been spent explaining why abiogenesis is different from superstition Here's a basic summation: Pasteur with Spontaneous Generation: Proved that microorganisms didn't grow in a sterilized medium isolated from its environment (experimental group), but could appear in one open to its environment (control group), so that life wasn't arising from the material itself. Abiogenesis: Investigating the ways in which simple, organic compounds can combine to create fundamental elements of life (like RNA) in environments similar to early Earth in which life originally arose. The former has nothing to do with the latter. If anything, the former is one of the impetuses for the investigations of the latter. So, have these 'investigations' proven anything? I had a look at Ruth's link, and no surprises, it was all the 'if' and 'maybe' and 'perhaps'...
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2017 17:15:26 GMT
Here's a basic summation: Pasteur with Spontaneous Generation: Proved that microorganisms didn't grow in a sterilized medium isolated from its environment (experimental group), but could appear in one open to its environment (control group), so that life wasn't arising from the material itself. Abiogenesis: Investigating the ways in which simple, organic compounds can combine to create fundamental elements of life (like RNA) in environments similar to early Earth in which life originally arose. The former has nothing to do with the latter. If anything, the former is one of the impetuses for the investigations of the latter. So, have these 'investigations' proven anything?
Science is about evidence: proofs are for math. Yes, these investigations have provided a lot of evidence about many ways in which life could've risen from organic matter: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 6, 2017 0:11:42 GMT
So, have these 'investigations' proven anything?
Science is about evidence: proofs are for math. Yes, these investigations have provided a lot of evidence about many ways in which life could've risen from organic matter: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experimentSeriously? The discredited Miller-Urey experiment 60+ years ago is all you have got?
|
|
vomisacaasi
Sophomore
@vomisacaasi
Posts: 186
Likes: 44
|
Post by vomisacaasi on Mar 6, 2017 0:27:29 GMT
The only thing discredited about Miller-Urey was the make up of early Earth. The fact remains that they proved that pre-organic material can come from non organic matter.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 6, 2017 0:32:50 GMT
The only thing discredited about Miller-Urey was the make up of early Earth. The fact remains that they proved that pre-organic material can come from non organic matter. You are lying. The whole Miller-Urey farce was discredited, as it showed nothing of the sort. Half a bob on "pre-organic" - you could say "oh, carbon, that is "pre-organic".
|
|