Jump to content


Photo

Chirality


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
45 replies to this topic

#21 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 30 June 2012 - 10:14 AM

You are being asked to back up your claims with evidence of a naturally occurring mechanism that has been shown to produce 100% enantiomer solutions, not by citing beliefs of other people, expert chemist or not.


I'm sorry if I haven't been clear. I think we all agree that 100% enntiomers occur within the cell, don't we? That seems to be the starting point of the topic. I mentioned the work of Rbert Bruce Merrifield in polypeptide synthesis

"In the mid-60s Dr. Merrifield's laboratory first synthesized bradykinin, angiotensin, desamino-oxytocin and insulin. In 1969, he and his colleague Bernd Gutte announced the first synthesis of the enzyme, ribonuclease A. This work proved the chemical nature of enzymes."


As I understand it, Merrifield's synthesis is directly analogous to what happens in the cell and also to what could have happened the prebiotic earth.

#22 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 30 June 2012 - 10:31 AM

I'm sorry if I haven't been clear. I think we all agre that 100%enntiomers occur within the cell, don'twe?


Yes I agree with you in the above statement but you missed the point again.Posted Image You were claiming that abiogenesis is possible with respect to chirality. To support this claim that life can come from non-life, you need to provide a natural mechanism outside of a living system that could have produced a 100% enantiomer solution.


That seems to be the starting point of the topic. I mentioned the work of polypeptide synthesis


How is this the starting point? To get to that phase you have to solve the problem stated above.

#23 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 30 June 2012 - 10:31 AM

I think you're belief that an infinite regress is ok....


What I was trying to say is that an infinite regress is not necessary. As I explained, the first chemicals were not chiral. Chirality had a beginning.

#24 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 30 June 2012 - 10:43 AM

As I understand it, Merrifield's synthesis is directly analogous to what happens in the cell and also to what could have happened the prebiotic earth.


You mentioned his jig was a polystyrene bead, but where are these found in nature? I'm just not seeing the naturally occurring mechanism (outside of a living system) here...

#25 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 30 June 2012 - 11:15 AM

You mentioned his jig was a polystyrene bead, but where are these found in nature?


All it is is a solid surface that the constituents can adhere to. Clay has been suggested.

#26 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 30 June 2012 - 09:00 PM

1. Every reaction has its own mechanism. That's high shool chemistry. There's no single enzyme responsible for all reactions. Every reaction in the cell has its own enzyme.

2. Again, the point I am trying to make is that the chirality (homo or racemic) depends on the mechanism of each reaction. If the result is racemic, the geometry of the intermediate isn't fixed - i.e. there is no "jig" action from a catalyst. On the other hand, if the result is homochiral, fixed geometry is infered. There will never be a 50-50 mix of enantiomers if that type of mechanism is involved.



3. Yes, I am talking about the atoms and/or simple molecules from which amino acids are formed. They are achiral. If the amino acids were formed on a solid substrate - e.g. polystyrene or clay, they would be homochiral. (The amino acids in the Miller-Urey experiment were racemic because they were formed in free solution - i.e. without a catalyst.) Similarly, if the polyeptides and proteins were formed on a solid substrate like in Merrifield's experiments, we'd expect them to be chiral too. It's a similar process to what happens inside the cell but it doesn't require RNA.



4. We are talking about catalysts, in the form of a substrate on which chiral molecules can form in fixed geometry.



5. No offense but that's what I'm saying to you. If you had done your homework and studied your chemistry, you'd know the answers to your own questions.

I don't like to post links because creationists always complain that I'm trying to lead them in a certain direction. If you do an honest Google - not just creationist sites - I trust you to find the answers for yourself.


You're later post takes my own post out of context, I never agreed that your belief in an infinte regress was ok, here is what you cut out.

"I think you're belief that an infinite regress is ok, comes from the atheist notion of infinite regresses on the topic of the origin of the universe... (see a common theme here, atheistic explanations about origins results in an infinite regress)"

You do realise that your action to cut a person's quote to take it out of context shows intellectual dishonesty.



1. Of course, and did I ever attempt to argue those points? This is an attempt at a red herring.

I was asking what is the reaction for getting a 100% solution of one form of enantiomer for the first instance of DNA / RNA / proteins to come about. You STILL haven't given any evidence of this mechanism, rather you just claim that it exists... Using your logic I can also claim that I can fly to the moon, I don't need proof when I can just claim it is true.

Science requires evidence, not words!

Yes it occurs in cells, however we are discussing the origin of DNA / RNA / proteins therefore BEFORE cells existed. In order for any of these to form from an unguided process, (see the OP), then there would need to be some natural way, (without catalysts because they are proteins and at this point in time they do not exist because we are talking about their origin), of forming these higher structures


2. so what is the mechanism you keep claiming, see point one. Words without evidence is merely words I have asked you time and again for evidence for your claims.... Why dodge this if what you say is true?


3. And? You've explained nothing here. All what you said was that they are chiral.... which is my point!! Yes atoms are not chiral however atoms are not the point here, (another red herring attempt). Even if we start with atoms we get to the amino acids which form proteins that are chiral, the nucleic acids which form DNA are chiral... Hence your "explanation" here does nothing of the sort, its a mrere deflection.

Unless there is a naturalistic mechanism that can form these compounds without the use of these compounds pre-existing then chirality debunks any form of unguided process of DNA / RNA / protein to form since all of these products require one form of enantiomer. Do you understand my point? Or will you continue to beat around the bush?

4. No if you read the OP and the subsequent posts after the OP we are talking about the FIRST INSTANCE OF DNA / RNA / PROTEINS... ie- how your "catalyst" appeared to help form DNA... Since the catalyst itself is a protein which is formed of amino acids which are chiral, if you claim a catalyst as the solution for the chirality problem for DNA formation then what solution do you have for the chirality problem with your initial catalyst? This is the infinite regress I mentioned, it is also a logical absurdity.

5. I'm not asking you to just post links, perhaps WRITE yourself the gist of the evidence that there is. Merely stating for someone to go look on the internet is much worse than just posting links, (which still isn't nice anyway since a forum is about exchange / debate about ideas not websites). Just do what I have done previously post a statement and use a quote from somewhere to back it up and reference the website for validity... it can't be too hard to back up your assertions with evidence can it?


All these points are mainly me repeating myself since you have failed to answer them previously or are attempting to use red herrings to deter away from the point of this thread.

My point, (and the only thing you should really be concerned about) is this. The initial formation of DNA / RNA / proteins are done with nucleic acids / amino acids.. These building blocks display chirality and that one one enantiomer is required in the formation of these higher structures. In an unguided process there is nothing to stop the wrong enantiomer from bonding thus destroying the higher structure and rendering it useless. This effectively is evidence from the characteristics of the nature of molecules themselves that defy the abiogenesis concept. Perhaps consider reading the OP and other posts again so we don't need to repeat this information again.

#27 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 30 June 2012 - 09:11 PM

Yes I agree with you in the above statement but you missed the point again.Posted Image You were claiming that abiogenesis is possible with respect to chirality. To support this claim that life can come from non-life, you need to provide a natural mechanism outside of a living system that could have produced a 100% enantiomer solution.




How is this the starting point? To get to that phase you have to solve the problem stated above.



Exactly what I have been trying to point out. Thanks Jay for being more concise.

#28 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 02 July 2012 - 09:50 AM

You do realise that your action to cut a person's quote to take it out of context shows intellectual dishonesty.


When I quote you, it's only to point to the part of your post I'm referring to. My comments, are based on the context of the post tself, not on what I quoted.

I was asking what is the reaction for getting a 100% solution of one form of enantiomer for the first instance of DNA / RNA / proteins to come about.


It isn't one reaction. It's a series of reactions, each adding another component. The ones involving chiral centers need fixed geometry, the others not necessarily. Nobody can give you a sequence of reactions that hasn't been worked out yet but the fact that biochemsts are still working on it suggests that they don't believe it's impossible.

Using your logic I can also claim that I can fly to the moon, I don't need proof when I can just claim it is true.


And we've been to the moon. (I'm assuming you accept that.)

... (without catalysts because they are proteins and at this point in time they do not exist because we are talking about their origin)....


They don't need to be proteins. Note the polystyrene beads used by Merrifield.

so what is the mechanism you keep claiming...?


Again they haven't found it yet.That's why they're still looking, like NASA in 1968 and the Wright brothers in 1902.

Even if we start with atoms we get to the amino acids which form proteins that are chiral, the nucleic acids which form DNA are chiral...


I'm still baffled why you think that's a problem. The chirality comes from the mechanisms of the reactions. The mechanisms don't require the preexistence of anything. They only require something to hold them in the proper geometry.

I'm not evading anything. I just can't fathom what else you're asking.

Since the catalyst itself is a protein which is formed of amino acids which are chiral, if you claim a catalyst as the solution for the chirality problem for DNA formation then what solution do you have for the chirality problem with your initial catalyst?


It dosen't have to be a protein. It's that simple.

My point, (and the only thing you should really be concerned about) is this. The initial formation of DNA / RNA / proteins are done with nucleic acids / amino acids.. These building blocks display chirality and that one one enantiomer is required in the formation of these higher structures.


My two points:
1. Cataysts produce homochirality.
2. Catalysts do not have to be proteins.

#29 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 02 July 2012 - 05:57 PM

1. It isn't one reaction. It's a series of reactions, each adding another component. The ones involving chiral centers need fixed geometry, the others not necessarily. Nobody can give you a sequence of reactions that hasn't been worked out yet but the fact that biochemsts are still working on it suggests that they don't believe it's impossible.



2. And we've been to the moon. (I'm assuming you accept that.)



3. They don't need to be proteins. Note the polystyrene beads used by Merrifield.



4. Again they haven't found it yet.That's why they're still looking, like NASA in 1968 and the Wright brothers in 1902.



5. I'm still baffled why you think that's a problem. The chirality comes from the mechanisms of the reactions. The mechanisms don't require the preexistence of anything. They only require something to hold them in the proper geometry.

I'm not evading anything. I just can't fathom what else you're asking.



6. It dosen't have to be a protein. It's that simple.



7. My two points:
1. Cataysts produce homochirality.
2. Catalysts do not have to be proteins.

When I quote you, it's only to point to the part of your post I'm referring to. My comments, are based on the context of the post tself, not on what I quoted.



It isn't one reaction. It's a series of reactions, each adding another component. The ones involving chiral centers need fixed geometry, the others not necessarily. Nobody can give you a sequence of reactions that hasn't been worked out yet but the fact that biochemsts are still working on it suggests that they don't believe it's impossible.



And we've been to the moon. (I'm assuming you accept that.)



They don't need to be proteins. Note the polystyrene beads used by Merrifield.



Again they haven't found it yet.That's why they're still looking, like NASA in 1968 and the Wright brothers in 1902.



I'm still baffled why you think that's a problem. The chirality comes from the mechanisms of the reactions. The mechanisms don't require the preexistence of anything. They only require something to hold them in the proper geometry.

I'm not evading anything. I just can't fathom what else you're asking.



It dosen't have to be a protein. It's that simple.



My two points:
1. Cataysts produce homochirality.
2. Catalysts do not have to be proteins.


1. And we are all waiting with baited breath to see what these reactions actually are. Its of no use to claim "there are lots of reactions", and leave it at that. Where is your evidence? (as I asked before). Otherwise merely stating it is a position of faith.

2. Sigh, you didn't get my joke. I said I can fly to the moon, (like superman etc). Merely stating something is silly since it opens the door for others to do so. What if a man said he saw God? Since you accept the claims about evolution / abiogenesis without evidence then you would be obliged to believe this man as well. Do you see the double standards here?

3. This is obviously a knee-jerk claim.... Firstly how much polystyrene is made naturally? Secondly what would the catalysts be made of then? In reference to organic material the only things that perform actions are proteins and RNA. If you have evidence of some other completely new organic molecule then I ask you to show it, otherwise you're claim here is merely another faith statement since you have given no evidence.

4. And who is to say that they WILL find it? Do you see that this is yet another faith statement based on an argumentum ad futuris, (aka wishful thinking).

5. I know you are baffled that is why I am trying to help you understand. Chirality doesn't come from mechanisms, they are a characteristic of the compounds physical features... like your hands they are enantiomers and this is based on their physical form. So your claims here are incorrect and a rabbit hole, I urge you to keep on track.

You are evading by adding these red herrings. Atoms are not the subject here since (as I said) they lead to the formation of higher structures that have chirality which therefore means that at some point in time you have to deal with the chirality issue.

6. Then what is it? See point 3.

Do you see the level of faith you have demonstrated here? This is not a scientific claim.


7.

i)- You have yet to demonstrate the catalyst that can produce such a thing, that occurs naturally (outside of a cell), and is not a protein / RNA
ii)- You have yet to show a compound that can be utilized in organic structures in such a fashion that is not a protein / RNA.

#30 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 03 July 2012 - 10:43 AM

And we are all waiting with baited breath to see what these reactions actually are.


So am I. When the biochemists who are researching abiogenesis find them, I'm sure it won't be a secret. Why would they still be looking if they thought chirality was an insurmountable obstacle?

What if a man said he saw God? Since you accept the claims about evolution / abiogenesis without evidence then you would be obliged to believe this man as well. Do you see the double standards here?


I'd be obliged to ask for the same evidence of God that I ask of evolution/abiogenesis - physical evidence that can be verified objectively without reference to worldview. If you were intellectually honest, you'd do the same. The double standard is yours.

Firstly how much polystyrene is made naturally?


It doesn't have to be polystyrene. Anything that will hold the reactants in the proper geometry for reaction will do. Clay has been suggested.

In reference to organic material the only things that perform actions are proteins and RNA.


Not true. Once again, a catalyst that will ensure chiral products can be anything that holds the reactants in the proper geometry. Polystyrene. Clay.

And who is to say that they WILL find it?


Nobody is abolutely certain that they "will" fnd it but they wouldn't be looking if they thought it was impossible, would they?

Chirality doesn't come from mechanisms, they are a characteristic of the compounds physical features...


Chiral molecules are made by chemical reactions. To claim that the geometry of the mechanism has no effect is just bizarre. If you ever take a class in chemistry, I advise you not to say that on an exam.

#31 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 03 July 2012 - 05:03 PM

1. So am I. When the biochemists who are researching abiogenesis find them, I'm sure it won't be a secret. Why would they still be looking if they thought chirality was an insurmountable obstacle?



2. I'd be obliged to ask for the same evidence of God that I ask of evolution/abiogenesis - physical evidence that can be verified objectively without reference to worldview. If you were intellectually honest, you'd do the same. The double standard is yours.



3. It doesn't have to be polystyrene. Anything that will hold the reactants in the proper geometry for reaction will do. Clay has been suggested.



4. Not true. Once again, a catalyst that will ensure chiral products can be anything that holds the reactants in the proper geometry. Polystyrene. Clay.



5. Nobody is abolutely certain that they "will" fnd it but they wouldn't be looking if they thought it was impossible, would they?



6. Chiral molecules are made by chemical reactions. To claim that the geometry of the mechanism has no effect is just bizarre. If you ever take a class in chemistry, I advise you not to say that on an exam.



1. So you admit that you don't know what they are? So then why claim with such certainty that these so-called reactions existed? As I have already told you hoping for future evidence is the logical fallacy argumentum ad futuris, (wishful thinking). Science is about facts of reality in the now, not what we hope for in the future.

2. Yet you do not ask of any evidence of abiogenesis... If you read through the thread you've basically been defending it whilst giving zero evidence. Furthermore since supernatural events by definition are not relegated by the laws of nature, that is why I used a deductive process to determine their existence, ie- when things happen that defy natural laws / characteristics of reality then that even by definition is supernatural. Yet with abiogenesis since you claim it to be a natural process then it should still be able to be observed today or re-created... whilst at the same time not defying natural law / reality.

3. You do realise your just blowing in the wind, perhaps come back when you have actual evidence. I don't really like to discuss hypotheticals since anything is true when dealing with them. Come back to reality.

4. Again you need evidence for your claims. It seems the "science" of abiogenesis has more to do with imagination and wishful thinking than actual experimentation.

I think you're a tad confused here a catalyst seeks to hold a chemical in a position, (normally stressing the chemical bonds slightly), so that it has a lower activation energy thus increasing the rate of reaction. You are proposing that catalysts do something totally different in that they hold the compound in a particular way that compliments the geometry of the other reactant to form a specific physical shape. This is not how catalysts work.



5. A statement of faith, you're hoping that because other scientists haven't seen the impossibility of it that it isn't impossible. You do realise that there are some scientists who agree with my point of view too. Its not all or nothing.

6. NO! Chirality is due to the physical nature of the compound, yes the compound is created via components, however chirality itself is an innate characteristic based on the compounds physical form. It is merely a property of asymmetry, asymmetry isn't "created" within something it is a characteristic of it.

If you claim that it is created then there would be a time when the compound existed and yet had no enantiomers which is an absurd notion since asymmetry cannot be created. As I said your hands are enantiomers, now consider have your hands always been like that? Were there a process to make them to become chiral? or is being chiral just a product of their physical form? (which I have been stating many posts back).

#32 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 04 July 2012 - 08:32 PM

The fact of the matter is that scientists are wasting time and money attempting to find a solution for a worldview that defies current scientific laws... Perhaps the entire idea should be dropped and perhaps if new evidence comes to light in the future then the investigation can be reinstated.

Yet for now we have scientists attempting to defy natural laws to hold onto their pet theory.... Now if that wasn't biased I don't know what is.

Its also an absolute waste of resources, there is no benefit to abiogenesis. Since we already use organisms (sometimes modified) for Biotechnology. Considering that if someone "created" a bacteria for bioremediation, it would have pretty much the same attributes as another bacteria that was selected for the job, (or modified to be better).

#33 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 05 July 2012 - 08:45 AM

Fact: Biochemists are investigating abiogenesis. That suggests that they don't think chirality is an insurmountable obstacle. Your undereducated opinions don't trump theirs.

You seem to be suggesting that there is something miraculous about the creation of a cell that cannot be duplicated by anything short of a miracle. If so, why don't you just say, "Insert miracle here," and stop pretending that you're talking about science?

#34 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 05 July 2012 - 10:10 AM

Fact: Biochemists are investigating abiogenesis. That suggests that they don't think chirality is an insurmountable obstacle. Your undereducated opinions don't trump theirs.

You seem to be suggesting that there is something miraculous about the creation of a cell that cannot be duplicated by anything short of a miracle. If so, why don't you just say, "Insert miracle here," and stop pretending that you're talking about science?


*Mod Hat On** WARNING: Ad hominem attacks are against the forum rules and will not be tolerated. *Mod Had Off*

#35 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 July 2012 - 10:12 AM

Fact: Biochemists are investigating abiogenesis. That suggests that they don't think chirality is an insurmountable obstacle. Your undereducated opinions don't trump theirs.

You seem to be suggesting that there is something miraculous about the creation of a cell that cannot be duplicated by anything short of a miracle. If so, why don't you just say, "Insert miracle here," and stop pretending that you're talking about science?


You do realise that ad hominems are a sign of weakness?

I am claiming that creation of a cell requires intelligence, if scientists are able to create a cell themselves that is proof of the requirement of intelligence. What is much less scientific is sitting around hoping that "science is working on it" in that an answer may come from the future to vindicate your position. Perhaps I could do the same and claim that I will one day be bullet-proof and super-strong, and I can claim this on the future evidence that one day it may happen.... Do you see how this "logic" leads to the belief of even the most outlandish claims, its not rational. Stick to the facts and leave imagination in imagination-land.

#36 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 05 July 2012 - 10:52 AM

I am claiming that creation of a cell requires intelligence, if scientists are able to create a cell themselves that is proof of the requirement of intelligence.


If you push a rock and it rolls downhill, that doesn't "prove" that rolling requires intelligence. It only proves that intelligence can manipulate rolling.

Perhaps I could do the same and claim that I will one day be bullet-proof and super-strong, and I can claim this on the future evidence that one day it may happen....


Yes, you could make that claim and test it in the lab the same way that biocheists are testing their claims about abiogeesis. Once you do something to test it, it isn't in imagination land any more.

#37 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 July 2012 - 05:50 PM

If you push a rock and it rolls downhill, that doesn't "prove" that rolling requires intelligence. It only proves that intelligence can manipulate rolling.



Yes, you could make that claim and test it in the lab the same way that biocheists are testing their claims about abiogeesis. Once you do something to test it, it isn't in imagination land any more.


1. Its not the same. Since rolling downhill is observed to be a natural phenomena, furthermore it is predicted based on natural laws and the characteristics of reality. What you are claiming has never been observed and it defies natural laws and the innate characteristics of reality.

I ask you what is more logical

i) the claim that is based on natural laws and fits within how is reality is observed to work.
ii) the claim that defies natural laws and defies how reality is observed to work.

Now do you think that sitting around hoping, (yes literally hoping) that proposition will ever happen is a logical / scientific endeavor?



Yes tests can be done and if it was proven wrong then would you admit that further belief in that claim is deluded?..... (Since the same is with abiogenesis, it is highly likely that scientists already know that chirality defies their claims and has made many of their experiments fail... (I cannot claim I know that they know, however it can be assumed with confidence).... Yet they STILL believe that their claims are possible... Its the same as if I was claiming I am bullet-proof straight after I get shot, its deluded).

Howver you know what I meant, and you cut out the 2nd part of what I said and changed the context, and is deterring this away from what I am pointing out.

"Perhaps I could do the same and claim that I will one day be bullet-proof and super-strong, and I can claim this on the future evidence that one day it may happen.... Do you see how this "logic" leads to the belief of even the most outlandish claims, its not rational. Stick to the facts and leave imagination in imagination-land."

What I am pointing out is that this "science" opens the door for anything to be claimed scientific furthermore it negates the requirement of evidence (as demanded by the scientific method), since even when it is empirically demonstrated that the proposition is shown to be false, people still cling to their hope that one day it will happen.

#38 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,391 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 05 July 2012 - 06:55 PM

Fact: Biochemists are investigating abiogenesis. That suggests that they don't think chirality is an insurmountable obstacle. Your undereducated opinions don't trump theirs.

*Mod Hat On** WARNING: Ad hominem attacks are against the forum rules and will not be tolerated. *Mod Had Off*


Hmm. Just a comment. I've stayed out of this thread because I'm not big on molecular biology/biochemistry, but that was not just an Ad hominem attack, but yet another appeal to ambiguous authority, i.e. I can't prove my point, so go argue it with "they".

Yes, a fallacious argument he has been hammering over and over, as if it gains more weight the more times he repeats it.

#39 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 July 2012 - 07:36 PM

Hmm. Just a comment. I've stayed out of this thread because I'm not big on molecular biology/biochemistry, but that was not just an Ad hominem attack, but yet another appeal to ambiguous authority, i.e. I can't prove my point, so go argue it with "they".

Yes, a fallacious argument he has been hammering over and over, as if it gains more weight the more times he repeats it.


Actually its both fallacies :D

Its an appeal to authority wrapped up in an ad hominem attack

#40 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,391 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 05 July 2012 - 07:50 PM

That's weird. I typed the first part of my post, but not the second section (although I agree with it 100%) Someone must have been typing the second part as a response when I edited my post to change it from "stayed out of this post" to "stayed out of this thread" and it got incorporated into my original post.

Whoever wrote "Yes, a fallacious argument...he repeats it.", please step forward so I may add my assent to your post :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users