For the alternative theorists:

[Trippy]

in other words you are refusing to address the following question:
do you or do you not dispute anything the site has to say about chirality.

If I was refusing to answer that I would say "I'm not going to answer that." But I haven't, instead I have challenged you to examine the evidence before you and even given you the criteria for making the assessment.

It's not my fault you're too lazy to try and think for yourself.

 

[leopold]

let it be known that trippy has refused to directly answer the questions in post 1784.
thanks for the infraction, indole breath.

 

[humbleteleskop]

do you or do you not dispute anything the site has to say about chirality.
i want to know because you gave me 2 infractions for that post.
and i want to know why.

I dispute that there is any problem in the first place.

- abiogenesis could have started regardless of what was initial ratio between two chiral forms
- whatever initial ratio, evolution could have have led to either side of homochirality, or end up with both

Can you disagree? And if not, then you submit there is no actually any problem?

 

[humbleteleskop]

In the context of your applied "logic(?)", the laws of physics have exactly two things to do with "free will" :
1.) - diddley
...and
2.) - squat

Clearly I said that constancy of the laws of physics is exactly what is preventing "free will" to exist.

 

[Trippy]

let it be known that trippy has refused to directly answer the questions in post 1784.
thanks for the infraction, indole breath.

No, this is a lie and a misrepresentation of what I have said, and by rights I should ban you for the insult.

Let it be known that Trippy considers that he has already addressed each and every one of the points on Leopolds propaganda, which Leopold would know if he chose to exercise his critical reading skills.

 

[Trippy]

It's like you are blaming me for your own failure to clarify yourself.

No, I have been ridiculously clear.

You keep making statements without any reason or explanation given. What is it you disagree with, do you even know?

Have you read anything I have actually said? Seriously. I'm starting to feel like I'm wasting my time with you and Leopold.

It's a possible fact, just like your assumptions, only mine is far more plausible.

Here's the thing, nothing I have said is based on assumptions, it's based on evidence and your position puts you in opposition to the mainstream.

Are you trying to say there can not exist such enzyme capable of producing amino acids out of simple non-chiral molecules?

There are many things wrong with this question. On the one hand, amino acids are chiral and what have we been discussing all this time? The fact that it takes a homochiral substrate or solvent to make a homochiral solution.

 

[leopold]

. . . and by rights I should ban you for the insult.

whatever floats your boat, trigger happy homeboy.

actually trippy i wanted an honest opinion as to whether "creationist sites" spew the garbage everyone says they do.
i don't give a rats ass about what they believe in, i want to know if their analysis is flawed, their reasoning unsound.
yes, i could have followed up on the references, dug out the science journals the research is taken from and presented THAT.
but why should i, when it's all right on one page.
also, there are 2 sides to a debate, is that how you squash your opponents, by infracting their evidence without good cause and threatening banning them?
yeah, go for it homer.

 

[humbleteleskop]

There are many things wrong with this question. On the one hand, amino acids are chiral and what have we been discussing all this time? The fact that it takes a homochiral substrate or solvent to make a homochiral solution.

The original question was whether organisms produce new amino acids while they are alive, thus increasing chirality ratio in their environment in favor of their own chirality. I say yes. You?

 

[humbleteleskop]

actually trippy i wanted an honest opinion as to whether "creationist sites" spew the garbage everyone says they do.
i don't give a rats ass about what they believe in, i want to know if their analysis is flawed, their reasoning unsound.
yes, i could have followed up on the references, dug out the science journals the research is taken from and presented THAT.
but why should i, when it's all right on one page.
also, there are 2 sides to a debate, is that how you squash your opponents, by infracting their evidence without good cause and threatening banning them?
yeah, go for it homer.

It's irrelevant where the argument comes from, just copy/paste the specifics here so we know what is it we are talking about. Bring it on.

 

[humbleteleskop]

No, I have been ridiculously clear.

1.) abiogenesis could have started regardless of what was initial ratio between the two chiral forms
2.) whatever initial ratio, evolution could have have led to either side of homochirality, or end up with both

Can you disagree with either of these two, and what evidence is there to support your opinion? I don't see you suggested anything else but their mutual toxicity. But, although they both are toxic to each other, they are not equally toxic, are they? In any case there is plenty of ways for evolution to deal with any kind of initial ratio so it turns out the way we see it today.

 

[Trippy]

actually trippy i wanted an honest opinion as to whether "creationist sites" spew the garbage everyone says they do.
i don't give a rats ass about what they believe in, i want to know if their analysis is flawed, their reasoning unsound.

Or, you could have followed up on my suggestion, reviewed the discussion between myself and Humble Telescope and proceeded from there.

 

[leopold]

It's irrelevant where the argument comes from, just copy/paste the specifics here so we know what is it we are talking about. Bring it on.

i already have, and gotten a warning and an infraction for posing it.
let it be known that trippy HAS NOT said the evidence is invalid.


be aware that all i'm interested in is the discussion about chirality.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

in other words you are refusing to address the following question:
do you or do you not dispute anything the site has to say about chirality.

If I was refusing to answer that I would say "I'm not going to answer that." But I haven't, instead I have challenged you to examine the evidence before you and even given you the criteria for making the assessment.

It's not my fault you're too lazy to try and think for yourself.

The ^^above quoted^^ appears to satisfy the definition of a personal (ad hominem) attack.
I was under the impression that the proper "Netiquette" was to "Attack the argument, not the person".

I. Unacceptable behaviour that may result in a temporary or permanent ban

Personal attacks, threats and stalking
2. A personal attack on another member usually involves the word ‘you’, express or implied by context, combined with a negative comment. Attacks on another member (known as ad hominem attacks), as opposed to criticisms of his or her arguments, are not tolerated. Childish name-calling, such as referring to a member as a ‘moron’, ‘twit’, or ‘idiot’, is one obvious example of a personal attack.

But, then again I, dmoe, prefer to actually exercise my critical thinking and reading faculties.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

You premise the question by stating that the Laws of Physics are unchangeable.
Therefore, the basis of your reasoning when posing the question is that the Laws of Physics are unchangeable. Period.

You are supposed to agree or disagree, not to repeat back to me what I said myself.

Is the ^^above quoted^^ one of your perceived "unchangeable Laws of Physics", humbleteleskop?

You then ask, can "free will" make any difference?
humbleteleskop, that question seems to be incomplete - cause it just does not make sense -there should be something after "difference".

If your physical body is completely governed by the laws of physics, can your "free will" make your body do anything else but what it was already going to do under strict guidance of the laws of physics anyway?

The "unchangeable Laws of Physics" through Chemistry and Biology, is what produced the "consciousness", in some Human Beings.
It is this "consciousness", in some Human Beings, that that allows "free will".

humbleteleskop, if the question actually is : "If the laws of physics are unchangeable, can "free will" make any difference to the laws of physics?

If the laws of physics are unchangeable, can "free will" make any difference in the material world?

Yes!
Indubitably!
humbleteleskop, it is the "unchangeable Laws of Physics" through Chemistry and Biology, that, for all intents and purposes, practically demands the utilization of "free will", in some Human Beings.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

let it be known that trippy has refused to directly answer the questions in post 1784.
thanks for the infraction, indole breath.

No, this is a lie and a misrepresentation of what I have said, and by rights I should ban you for the insult.

The ^^above quoted^^ appears to be a thinly veiled "Threat".
I was under the impression that "Threats" were not tolerated on SciForums.

I. Unacceptable behaviour that may result in a temporary or permanent ban

Personal attacks, threats and stalking
3. Any member who threatens another member will under most circumstances be banned from sciforums.

Let it be known that Trippy considers that he has already addressed each and every one of the points on Leopolds propaganda, which Leopold would know if he chose to exercise his critical reading skills.

The ^^above quoted^^ appears to satisfy the definition of a personal (ad hominem) attack.
I was under the impression that the proper "Netiquette" was to "Attack the argument, not the person".

I. Unacceptable behaviour that may result in a temporary or permanent ban

Personal attacks, threats and stalking
2. A personal attack on another member usually involves the word ‘you’, express or implied by context, combined with a negative comment. Attacks on another member (known as ad hominem attacks), as opposed to criticisms of his or her arguments, are not tolerated. Childish name-calling, such as referring to a member as a ‘moron’, ‘twit’, or ‘idiot’, is one obvious example of a personal attack.

But, then again I, dmoe, prefer to actually exercise my critical thinking and reading faculties.

 

[krash661]

But, then again I, dmoe, prefer to actually exercise my critical thinking and reading faculties.

which is nothing more than stalking the forum with your continuous spamming nonsense post.

 

[leopold]

The ^^above quoted^^ appears to be a thinly veiled "Threat".

he can threaten me all he wants.
it sure isn't going to stop me from posting valid evidence, no matter WHAT the source.
if the man refuses it just because of where it comes from says something about the man, doncha think?
i honestly feel like this is the reason creationist scientists are being discriminated against.
and it's wrong to do so.

 

[exchemist]

The ^^above quoted^^ appears to be a thinly veiled "Threat".
I was under the impression that "Threats" were not tolerated on SciForums.



The ^^above quoted^^ appears to satisfy the definition of a personal (ad hominem) attack.
I was under the impression that the proper "Netiquette" was to "Attack the argument, not the person".



But, then again I, dmoe, prefer to actually exercise my critical thinking and reading faculties.

Dmoe, conducting these vendettas in public, in large and heavy typeface, is awfully tedious for the rest of us, you know. Can you not complain to the Mods via private messages, and give us all a break?

 

[Trippy]

he can threaten me all he wants.
it sure isn't going to stop me from posting valid evidence, no matter WHAT the source.
if the man refuses it just because of where it comes from says something about the man, doncha think?
i honestly feel like this is the reason creationist scientists are being discriminated against.
and it's wrong to do so.

Because clearly, stating that I have already answered the question is avoiding answering the question, right?

You know, it's not like every major point they raise hasn't already been discussed in this thread, right?

 

[Russ_Watters]

i honestly feel like this is the reason creationist scientists are being discriminated against.

No: there is no such thing as a "creationist scientist", so no such people to discriminate against. One cannot enter a club by self-labeling oneself as a member.

And while it may seem to SOUND nice to say all evidence should be considered regardless of source, it only sounds nice: all sources are not equal and known bad sources should not be considered. Proper source selection is a basic part of critical thinking.