Oh that's nice. All a man has to do is sign away his rights/claims and he is no longer responsible. That would be convenient for all the deadbeats out there.
metallic mercury is "safe" - it's not bio-available
That doesn't sound right. This study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2646878/) says the following:
"As an illustration of the effects of CFL breakage, the release of only 1 mg of Hg vapor (20% of the Hg inventory in a single CFL) into a 500 m3 room (10 × 10 × 5m) yields 2.0 g/m3 or ten times the ATSDR-recommended level of 0.2 g/m3 in the absence of ventilation."
The mentioned 0.2 g/m3 limit is for children (25 g/m3 for adults). However, my child's bedroom is a lot smaller than 500m3.
The ring species are all basically the same animal! Different colored plumage may be enough to prevent them from mating in nature (and therefore be called a new species), but it is hardly a different animal. In fact, I wouldn't be at all suprised if they could be bred artificially.
Thanks for the pedantic hints. I especially like the one about the strawman, which is what you did to me (crocoduck, seriously).
So your actually saying that life metabolized non-living molecules and therefore life comes from non-life, and that we don't even need to bother how life started in the first place?
"Eventually it will be demonstrated". At least you admit that it hasn't yet.
Creationists ask for experimental evidence and we get hypothesis, then we are called anti-science for not buying the "good possibilities".
Neither viruses nor prions are capability of reproducing themselves. They both interfere with the reproduction process of healthy cells. I don't know why you think they even apply to my statement. They are obviously not a stepping stone in the life-from-non-life scenario because they assume life is already in place. Show me a protein sequence which is able to actually reproduce itself chemically and we might have something.
"it is not impossible to construct a sequence of events where life could emerge from non-life". In hypothesis only, show me an experiement in a peer-reviewed journal which has worked out these sequences. This is exactly what I mean when I say "We expect that when someone makes a statement of science, that it have actually been tested using the methods of science." What you claim (that there is a sequence of events) is a claim of science, but which has not been proved using the method of science (experimentation). It is just a bald assertion.
I'm sure a lot of Christians do, but all I am asking for is experimental evidence for life from non-life. That request has nothing to do with my a priori beliefs.
And yet all the creatures in the ring are the same basic animal (salamanders for example). Show me a ring where the ends are dramatically different and we'll have something to talk about.
Evolutionists reject what is essentially the Prime Directive of Biology: Life cannot come from nonlife.
It is not that we reject science. We don't think that macro-evolution has been experimentally proven. We expect that when someone makes a statement of science, that it have actually been tested using the methods of science.
Exclude Jews from salvation? The book of Hebrews (probably written by Paul) explains that all the sacrifies that the Jews did for hundreds of years prior pointed to the coming of, and execution of, Christ. Christ fulfulled all of those promises, therefore all the Jews who obeyed the Law as set forth in Exodus and Deuteronomy have salvation.
Now, Paul also says (in Romans) that Jesus made the law irrelevent by his death, so there is no longer salvation for simply obeying those laws.
Re:It's not just specialization, there is also fea
on
Where's HAL 9000?
·
· Score: 1
Please cite for me (in a peer-reviewed journal) even one experiment which demonstrates that we evolved into sentient beings from non-sentient organic matter.
Re:It's not just specialization, there is also fea
on
Where's HAL 9000?
·
· Score: 1
Plenty? Please cite for me (in a peer-reviewed journal) even one experiment which demonstrates that we evolved into sentient beings from non-sentient organic matter.
Re:It's not just specialization, there is also fea
on
Where's HAL 9000?
·
· Score: 0
Why not? We evolved into sentient beings from non-sentient organic matter, why couldn't the same thing be possible with silicon based intelligence?
Do you have any scientific basis for these claims or are you just making things up?
"it's always a degree in engineering". Really? Here are four. I didn't feel like researching any more since your statement was wrong with just one.
Hugh Ross - BSc Physics from University of British Colombia, PhD in astronomy from University of Toronto. Thomas Barnes - MS Physics from Brown University John Baumgardner - PhD Geophysics from UCLA. Ian Mcreadie - PhD in Microbiology from Monash University
The question was worded fine... you obviously got the point. He used something frivolous like fruits and vegetables so she couldn't say, "Well, I cannot comment on a case I might actually get."
Slashdot Mirror
Oh that's nice. All a man has to do is sign away his rights/claims and he is no longer responsible. That would be convenient for all the deadbeats out there.
metallic mercury is "safe" - it's not bio-available
That doesn't sound right. This study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2646878/) says the following:
"As an illustration of the effects of CFL breakage, the release of only 1 mg of Hg vapor (20% of the Hg inventory in a single CFL) into a 500 m3 room (10 × 10 × 5m) yields 2.0 g/m3 or ten times the ATSDR-recommended level of 0.2 g/m3 in the absence of ventilation."
The mentioned 0.2 g/m3 limit is for children (25 g/m3 for adults). However, my child's bedroom is a lot smaller than 500m3.
We know life comes from non-life becase we are here. Yea for scientific method!
The ring species are all basically the same animal! Different colored plumage may be enough to prevent them from mating in nature (and therefore be called a new species), but it is hardly a different animal. In fact, I wouldn't be at all suprised if they could be bred artificially.
Thanks for the pedantic hints. I especially like the one about the strawman, which is what you did to me (crocoduck, seriously).
So your actually saying that life metabolized non-living molecules and therefore life comes from non-life, and that we don't even need to bother how life started in the first place?
"Eventually it will be demonstrated". At least you admit that it hasn't yet.
Creationists ask for experimental evidence and we get hypothesis, then we are called anti-science for not buying the "good possibilities".
Neither viruses nor prions are capability of reproducing themselves. They both interfere with the reproduction process of healthy cells. I don't know why you think they even apply to my statement. They are obviously not a stepping stone in the life-from-non-life scenario because they assume life is already in place. Show me a protein sequence which is able to actually reproduce itself chemically and we might have something.
"it is not impossible to construct a sequence of events where life could emerge from non-life". In hypothesis only, show me an experiement in a peer-reviewed journal which has worked out these sequences. This is exactly what I mean when I say "We expect that when someone makes a statement of science, that it have actually been tested using the methods of science." What you claim (that there is a sequence of events) is a claim of science, but which has not been proved using the method of science (experimentation). It is just a bald assertion.
I'm sure a lot of Christians do, but all I am asking for is experimental evidence for life from non-life. That request has nothing to do with my a priori beliefs.
And yet all the creatures in the ring are the same basic animal (salamanders for example). Show me a ring where the ends are dramatically different and we'll have something to talk about.
Evolutionists reject what is essentially the Prime Directive of Biology: Life cannot come from nonlife.
It is not that we reject science. We don't think that macro-evolution has been experimentally proven. We expect that when someone makes a statement of science, that it have actually been tested using the methods of science.
The agnostic point of view means that it's OK to say you don't know.
The atheistic point of view means you know there isn't a God.
Fitness selections which were designed to push the conditions towards a predefined goal... what you are talking about has nothing to do with this.
And yes, I am one of bereft ones.
Exclude Jews from salvation? The book of Hebrews (probably written by Paul) explains that all the sacrifies that the Jews did for hundreds of years prior pointed to the coming of, and execution of, Christ. Christ fulfulled all of those promises, therefore all the Jews who obeyed the Law as set forth in Exodus and Deuteronomy have salvation.
Now, Paul also says (in Romans) that Jesus made the law irrelevent by his death, so there is no longer salvation for simply obeying those laws.
Please cite for me (in a peer-reviewed journal) even one experiment which demonstrates that we evolved into sentient beings from non-sentient organic matter.
Plenty? Please cite for me (in a peer-reviewed journal) even one experiment which demonstrates that we evolved into sentient beings from non-sentient organic matter.
Why not? We evolved into sentient beings from non-sentient organic matter, why couldn't the same thing be possible with silicon based intelligence?
Do you have any scientific basis for these claims or are you just making things up?
Those who are unable are also risking society.
Whatever we do to the "able but unwilling" we need to do to "unable, willing or otherwise".
The corpus of scientific knowledge can't even prove that the world exists...
"Especially when geological processes for forming many complex organic chemicals abiotically have been documented."
Not really. Amino acids are the only ones that come to mind, and they are on the low end of complexity.
"it's always a degree in engineering". Really? Here are four. I didn't feel like researching any more since your statement was wrong with just one.
Hugh Ross - BSc Physics from University of British Colombia, PhD in astronomy from University of Toronto.
Thomas Barnes - MS Physics from Brown University
John Baumgardner - PhD Geophysics from UCLA.
Ian Mcreadie - PhD in Microbiology from Monash University
Surely you could cite at least one source for some of this?
The religious holiday is All Saints Day (Nov 1), not the evening before it.
The question was worded fine... you obviously got the point. He used something frivolous like fruits and vegetables so she couldn't say, "Well, I cannot comment on a case I might actually get."
I guess that would have been a better way to answer it... so why did she bumble through an answer instead of just saying that?
Inspections and bans are not the same thing as mandating that everyone eat three vegetables and three fruits a day.
I'd mod you up if I had points. This is probably the best comment in this entire conversation.