Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Bump: evolution scientists openly promote their belief in scientific journals

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bump: evolution scientists openly promote their belief in scientific journals

    Originally posted by rossum View Post
    Certainly. See these two papers:

    • Becker et al. (2016) A high-yielding, strictly regioselective prebiotic purine nucleoside formation pathway.

    • Powner et al. (2009) RNA pyrimidine synthesis.

    Those give us uracil as well as ACGT so we have RNA (ACGU) as well as DNA (ACGT)..

    Did you not bother to check first whether or not science had already answered your question before you asked it? If you want to ask a 'gotcha' question then you need to check first that it really is a gotcha question. If it isn't then you are going to be the one with egg on your face.

    Now show us where your divinely created adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine and uracil are.

    Cpacman1 then quoted:

    "Scientific abiogenesis is well ahead of creationism.
    In the Abstract it states, "The origin of life is believed to have started with prebiotic molecules reacting along unidentified pathways to produce key molecules such as nucleosides."

    Yes, this is a belief, not a scientific fact. Let's delve further into this belief system. How did the prebiotic molecules come into existence?"

  • #2
    Originally posted by cpacman1 View Post
    Originally posted by rossum View Post
    Certainly. See these two papers:

    • Becker et al. (2016) A high-yielding, strictly regioselective prebiotic purine nucleoside formation pathway.

    • Powner et al. (2009) RNA pyrimidine synthesis.

    Those give us uracil as well as ACGT so we have RNA (ACGU) as well as DNA (ACGT)..

    Did you not bother to check first whether or not science had already answered your question before you asked it? If you want to ask a 'gotcha' question then you need to check first that it really is a gotcha question. If it isn't then you are going to be the one with egg on your face.

    Now show us where your divinely created adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine and uracil are.

    Cpacman1 then quoted:

    "Scientific abiogenesis is well ahead of creationism.
    In the Abstract it states, "The origin of life is believed to have started with prebiotic molecules reacting along unidentified pathways to produce key molecules such as nucleosides."

    Yes, this is a belief, not a scientific fact. Let's delve further into this belief system. How did the prebiotic molecules come into existence?"
    So when you ask Club evo to demonstrate, they scurry like cockroaches.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by cpacman1 View Post
      Originally posted by rossum View Post
      Certainly. See these two papers:

      • Becker et al. (2016)

      • Powner et al. (2009)

      Those give us uracil as well as ACGT so we have RNA (ACGU) as well as DNA (ACGT)..

      Did you not bother to check first whether or not science had already answered your question before you asked it? If you want to ask a 'gotcha' question then you need to check first that it really is a gotcha question. If it isn't then you are going to be the one with egg on your face.

      Now show us where your divinely created adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine and uracil are.

      Cpacman1 then quoted:

      "Scientific abiogenesis is well ahead of creationism.
      In the Abstract it states, "The origin of life is believed to have started with prebiotic molecules reacting along unidentified pathways to produce key molecules such as nucleosides."

      Yes, this is a belief, not a scientific fact. Let's delve further into this belief system. How did the prebiotic molecules come into existence?"
      So the Grand Fabulators can't demonstrate their delusional assertions?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by cpacman1 View Post

        "Scientific abiogenesis is well ahead of creationism.
        In the Abstract it states, "The origin of life is believed to have started with prebiotic molecules reacting along unidentified pathways to produce key molecules such as nucleosides."

        Yes, this is a belief, not a scientific fact. Let's delve further into this belief system. How did the prebiotic molecules come into existence?"
        Hardkor speculation.

        40,000 kinds of lipids in a cell membrane to protect the "information" in the DNA and to regulate which molecules enter and which leave the cell. How did the cell membrane figger that out?



        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by cpacman1 View Post
          Yes, this is a belief, not a scientific fact. Let's delve further into this belief system. How did the prebiotic molecules come into existence?"
          We do not know exactly how those prebiotic molecules actually came into existence. What science has shown is that there are possible pathways by which they could have formed. Prior to the publication of those two papers there were no obvious pathways known. Now there are possible pathways. That is how science advances, by small steps. In order to make either DNA or RNA a supply of both purines and pyrimidines is needed. We can now see how that supply might have originated.

          I am still awaiting evidence for divinely created purines or pyrimidines. Don't you have any?
          The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by rossum View Post

            We do not know exactly how those prebiotic molecules actually came into existence. What science has shown is that there are possible pathways by which they could have formed. Prior to the publication of those two papers there were no obvious pathways known. Now there are possible pathways. That is how science advances, by small steps. In order to make either DNA or RNA a supply of both purines and pyrimidines is needed. We can now see how that supply might have originated.

            I am still awaiting evidence for divinely created purines or pyrimidines. Don't you have any?
            You clearly have not had American Organic Chemistry 531 and 532. You got busted again on abiogenesis.

            What did your kult leader idiot Darwin write about purines and pyrimidines? lol

            How many small steps to develop a cell wall? 50,000 kinds of lipids.

            Gemmules lol

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Nouveau View Post
              What did your kult leader idiot Darwin write about purines and pyrimidines?
              I know of a scientifically illiterate idiot who wrote human have 300 million proteins. Of course this idiot has also claimed to be a scientist, a neurosurgeon, an accountant, a psychologist, a rancher, an OB/GYN, a lawyer, and a university professor. Everyone knows he's just a gas filled blowhard.

              Let me know if you want his name.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Nouveau View Post
                What did your kult leader idiot Darwin write about purines and pyrimidines?
                Darwin wrote exactly the same as what your "kult leader idiot" wrote about purines and pyrimidines.
                The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Evo pusher deflectionism



                  Originally posted by rossum View Post

                  Darwin wrote exactly the same as what your "kult leader idiot" wrote about purines and pyrimidines.
                  So why didn't the idiot Kult leader Darwin know much?

                  Why do his sockpuppets fail to explain the gemmules he lied about?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Nouveau View Post
                    Evo pusher deflectionism
                    Creo pusher trying to deflect from the fact that his "kult leader idiot" never wrote about either purines or pyrimidines.
                    The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by cpacman1 View Post
                      Originally posted by rossum View Post
                      Certainly. See these two papers:

                      • Becker et al. (2016) A high-yielding, strictly regioselective prebiotic purine nucleoside formation pathway.

                      • Powner et al. (2009) RNA pyrimidine synthesis.

                      Those give us uracil as well as ACGT so we have RNA (ACGU) as well as DNA (ACGT)..

                      Did you not bother to check first whether or not science had already answered your question before you asked it? If you want to ask a 'gotcha' question then you need to check first that it really is a gotcha question. If it isn't then you are going to be the one with egg on your face.

                      Now show us where your divinely created adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine and uracil are.

                      Cpacman1 then quoted:

                      "Scientific abiogenesis is well ahead of creationism.
                      In the Abstract it states, "The origin of life is believed to have started with prebiotic molecules reacting along unidentified pathways to produce key molecules such as nucleosides."

                      Yes, this is a belief, not a scientific fact. Let's delve further into this belief system. How did the prebiotic molecules come into existence?"
                      If you are waiting for the science groupie to demonstrate abiogenesis, it will require a billion years under a sterile rock.

                      They pointed to maggots on road kill as spontaneous generation of life and that failed.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Peer review = amen corner

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Nouveau View Post
                          Peer review = amen corner
                          LOL! Fake scientist sticks his foot in his mouth again.

                          Originally posted by Nouveau View Post
                          I am published in several science fields.
                          Big Hat No Cattle.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Cpacman1 then quoted:

                            "Scientific abiogenesis is well ahead of creationism.
                            In the Abstract it states, "The origin of life is believed to have started with prebiotic molecules reacting along unidentified pathways to produce key molecules such as nucleosides."

                            Yes, this is a belief, not a scientific fact. Let's delve further into this belief system. How did the prebiotic molecules come into existence?"
                            It's refreshing to hear the truth stated that it really is a belief system-worldview so from my own sparse gleaning on the subject over the years it seems to me the key problem is where does the controlling information vital to the assembly of random elements and molecules even in any constituent part of a basic functional cell structure come from when even molecules really don't care.

                            I look at it from more of a philosophical perspective because the core belief has not really changed over centuries.

                            Dionysius [A.D. 200-265.]

                            http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf0...ii.i.ii.v.html

                            ""Yea, Democritus himself, as it is reported, averred that he would prefer the discovery of one true cause to being put in possession of the kingdom of Persia. And that was the declaration of a man who had only a vain and groundless conception of the causes of things, inasmuch as he started with an unfounded principle, and an erroneous hypothesis, and did not discern the real root and the common law of necessity in the constitution of natural things, and held as the greatest wisdom the apprehension of things that come about simply in an unintelligent and random way, and set up chance as the mistress and queen of things universal, and even things divine, and endeavoured to demonstrate that all things happen by the determination of the same, although at the same time he kept it outside the sphere of the life of men, and convicted those of senselessness who worshipped it."

                            "At any rate, at the very beginning of his Precepts he speaks thus: “Men have made an image of chance, as a cover for their own lack of knowledge. For intellect and chance are in their very nature antagonistic to each other. And men have maintained that this greatest adversary to intelligence is its sovereign. Yea, rather, they completely subvert and do away, with the one, while they establish the other in its place. For they do not celebrate intelligence as the fortunate, but they laud chance as the most intelligent.” ""

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by eyesmile View Post
                              It's refreshing to hear the truth stated that it really is a belief system-worldview so from my own sparse gleaning on the subject ...
                              Yes, as you say, 'sparse gleaning'. You have not really studied this material, have you?00

                              ...over the years it seems to me the key problem is where does the controlling information vital to the assembly of random elements and molecules even in any constituent part of a basic functional cell structure come from when even molecules really don't care.
                              Yes, considering that the origin of ;life was not the topic of the referenced paper, it was not under discussion. It was merely a statement that, for the purposes of this article, the scientific origin of life is accepted.

                              They didn't plan on scientifically illiterate people reading meanings into the paper.

                              I look at it from more of a philosophical perspective because the core belief has not really changed over centuries.
                              Yes, you would. In philosophy, you can say whatever you want.

                              Dionysius [A.D. 200-265.]

                              http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf0...ii.i.ii.v.html
                              ""Yea, Democritus himself, as it is reported, averred that he would prefer the discovery of one true cause to being put in possession of the kingdom of Persia. And that was the declaration of a man who had only a vain and groundless conception of the causes of things, inasmuch as he started with an unfounded principle, and an erroneous hypothesis, and did not discern the real root and the common law of necessity in the constitution of natural things, and held as the greatest wisdom the apprehension of things that come about simply in an unintelligent and random way, and set up chance as the mistress and queen of things universal, and even things divine, and endeavoured to demonstrate that all things happen by the determination of the same, although at the same time he kept it outside the sphere of the life of men, and convicted those of senselessness who worshipped it."

                              "At any rate, at the very beginning of his Precepts he speaks thus: “Men have made an image of chance, as a cover for their own lack of knowledge. For intellect and chance are in their very nature antagonistic to each other. And men have maintained that this greatest adversary to intelligence is its sovereign. Yea, rather, they completely subvert and do away, with the one, while they establish the other in its place. For they do not celebrate intelligence as the fortunate, but they laud chance as the most intelligent.” ""
                              Ah, that's a nice opinion.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X