GooglePoogle

Connor, Männlich, Vereinigte StaatenZuletzt gesehen: Februar 2013

96 gespielte Titel seit 12. Dez. 2009

65 Lieblingslieder | 2 Beiträge | 0 Playlisten | 51 Shouts

  • Freunde werden
  • Nachricht schreiben
  • Shout schreiben

Deine musikalische Übereinstimmung mit GooglePoogle ist unbekannt

Erstelle dein eigenes Musikprofil

Kürzlich angehörte Titel

Shoutbox

  • ISoS

    I haven't been on here in quite a long time as well. Consistent with what?

    6. Mai. 2011 Antworten
  • rhoward70

    Nice taste, brother...

    29. Okt. 2010 Antworten
  • roots-roy

    i like C.S.Lewis too. Christian and sharp brain, which some non-christians can't understand...:-) God Bless You !

    9. Jun. 2010 Antworten
  • ISoS

    I don't think she saw your questions as a "theoretical", I think she read them as you wanted to "put her in her place" with all kinds of technical knowledge/jargon. Let's face it, you went out of your way creating some flawless persona of her while you claimed ignorance, in the next post you then asked technical questions. Not that there's anything wrong with this, but you don't come across as receiving information very well from either of us. We're both pretty reasonable and nice people, but it's insulting when it appears you don't read what we said or understand it. This is why she doesn't respect you, because it looks like you're trying to back her into a corner with some sort of rehash of Dr. Behe's arguments involving irreducible complexity. I think you will find that she and I agree that he asked good questions... the problem is, his questions have mostly been solved, which is what she's trying to explain.

    3. Jun. 2010 Antworten
  • ISoS

    I like how people in the creationist club complain constantly that people who understand the science have "over-sized" egos. It's kind of a tiresome retort, to be frank. It's something I do not really understand, it's as if "I don't understand this" and then have it explained then claim "you have a huge ego, I can't listen to you!". I don't know, that's the impression I'm walking away with. It's very confusing if you ask me.

    2. Jun. 2010 Antworten
  • RageofAnath

    Nah its not semantics, I'm just not sure that you have any idea what I'm implying. I'm tired of seeing Behe's irreducible complexity everywhere and you're using one of his archetypal examples. You're basically insisting that the cycle couldn't have started because it's a self perpetuating cycle, which is not true.

    2. Jun. 2010 Antworten
  • RageofAnath

    Ok. Explain to me what I have been telling you. In your own words.

    2. Jun. 2010 Antworten
  • RageofAnath

    No, glycolysis is a catabolic process, not anabolic. Also to state that ATP is "usually" the source of the energy is erroneous as it overlooks other forms of metabolism such as purine metabolism, based around AMP, which would have predated ANYTHING using ATP. Additionally, the formula for glycolysis is C6H12O6+2[NAD+]+ 2[ADP] +2[P]i --> 2[CH3COCOO- +H+] + 2[NADH] +2[H+] + 2[ATP]. Think about it. The first ever 2[ADP] did not have to be broken apart specifically by ATP, as long as they were present and there was energy in the system (as there would be due to other metabolic processes running parallel) to jump start it. Then it could repeat itself as a cycle. You're so hung up on ATP and your own self righteousness that you can't figure out what I am trying to tell you. You have not made a valid point, and so I will not concede that you have. All you have done is proven you can stick to the guns of creationist literature and lack the imagination to step outside it.

    2. Jun. 2010 Antworten
  • RageofAnath

    And yes, metabolism is a process for creating other molecules. Read the SECOND sentence on the site you linked: In metabolism some substances are broken down to yield energy for vital processes while other substances, necessary for life, are synthesized. There are many types of metabolism, and any single one can be referred to as process (singular).

    1. Jun. 2010 Antworten
  • RageofAnath

    The point is that you're referring to the first cycle ever. My point here is that the first metabolic cycle EVER would not have started using ATP, and would not have been recognizable as glycolysis, because it wouldn't have been glycolysis--there are metabolic cycles that do not require ATP but rather simply AMP. So what that it requires ATP? The answer to your question "how does an organism, or specifically early, primitive organisms, obtain these 1st ATP molecules to start the process off?" has been answered in the fact that they could easily obtain all the materials from their environment, and did not need to use every step of modern metabolic processes to do so, instead working their way UP to the modern processes. Again, you can't remain consistent. You say: "I understand ...that there are severe differences between the cellular respiration set-up of today and of a primitive earth." then you get hung up on "OMG ATP" and throwing around terminology which you don't wield competently

    1. Jun. 2010 Antworten
  • RageofAnath

    You seem to have missed one HUGE step here, well, several. Maybe you just made a typo in your first post (which I missed) where you said "Glycolysis... requires 2 ATP in an investment phase". This is factually incorrect, it requires two ADP molecules. If you look on your diagram, you'll notice that all that entails is removing the unstable bond, so the founding elements of metabolism are NOT unstable. The POINT of metabolism is to create an unstable molecule (ATP) that will break apart and create more energy in the cell. There's your "process": METABOLISM. The second thing you don't get here is where I've been going with the initial "investment". This cycle did not poof into existence magically working in the first cell, the predecessors of it were operating before ANY endosymbiosis took place; probably not using ATP at all but AMP or ADP which would have been available and stable. This would imply that the initial investment was already there before metabolism was refined.

    28. Mai. 2010 Antworten
  • RageofAnath

    Covalent bonds are unstable?

    27. Mai. 2010 Antworten
  • RageofAnath

    Did you miss where I said that adenosine is found in the environment itself? It's also not necessary to go through every step of the Krebs cycle to metabolize. Of course there was a process to help it along; evolution. Starts out simple: uptake and integration of chemicals from natural environment, to complex: synthesize them yourself with the help of some friends (mitochondria). This is not a tough concept. The reason the old system (just take/integrate from environment) isn't used anymore is because evolution into complex cells has rendered it obsolete.

    27. Mai. 2010 Antworten
  • ISoS

    Oh and by the way, you are actually adding a God factor into the Gravity equation. You are essentially saying that God is the cause (or reason behind) of it. There is no data to actually suggest this.

    27. Mai. 2010 Antworten
  • ISoS

    Yes, but all of these religious people discuss things like their religious text. The Bible, for example, many maintain that it is the direct word of God or whatever (and usually claim it is infallible). This is complete nonsense, but if I take the assumption that EVERYTHING in the Bible must be a true statement (i.e. even the descriptions of the nature of this God) then working within that closed system, I can show it is not logically consistent. So either the Bible is completely wrong, the God described doesn't exist, or God is defined some "other" way that humanity has never actually encountered.

    27. Mai. 2010 Antworten
  • RageofAnath

    First of all, you can't assume the modern state of things is how it always worked. You also can't assume that ancient predecessors possessed the same features as modern cells. Many of the organelles in cells today were in the past individual organisms who began to cooperate as a unit to form the metabolic pathways for the Krebs cycle-- this is proven by the unique DNA present in mitochondria, chloroplasts, etc. Additionally, adenosine can form outside of the metabolic process, so the first steps in the first metabolic cycle feasibly came from the environment itself.

    27. Mai. 2010 Antworten
  • ISoS

    My main stance on God (especially the Christian one) is based on the fact that God is an illogical construct. I derive this by the way Christians describe their God. It can't maintain all the attributes they claim and exist, so to me, there's no possible way for it to exist. While proof of there being "no God" is probably impossible, I can at least talk about the God's conjured up by the human race over millennia. Those have specific traits and are defined, thus I can work within those definitions and prove their impossibility. And no, I don't want to just limit myself to Christianity in this endeavor.

    27. Mai. 2010 Antworten
  • ISoS

    No, simpler isn't always better. Okay, well most of the time it's better, but it has to fit the data and explain EVERYTHING and more. If incredibly complex is the simplest answer and it explains all the data... well then that's your answer. In fact the natural world is anything but simple, which is why we use things like Chaos Dynamics to represent things mathematically (Chaos being the key term : P). In any event I think my use of Occam's Razor isn't too far fetched in our particular discussion. God over complicates the systems we're talking about. I also think God over complicates things like Gravity, trying to work in some kind of "god factor" to explain how objects fall on Earth is, frankly, quite absurd. But a notion of a "God" is so all encompassing that for God to be true, there must be a God factor in ALL things. This is simply not the case, per the data we analyze.

    27. Mai. 2010 Antworten
  • RageofAnath

    If you follow the RNA world hypothesis, then RNA was the first recognizable, stable replicator. RNA does not require proteins, so it is not a paradox. The RNA world hypothesis seems the most plausible to me, but we're talking about abiogenesis, not evolution.

    27. Mai. 2010 Antworten
  • RageofAnath

    Despite what you seem to think, I do not deal in absolutes, so the idea that I should "be [your] constant source of knowledge regarding evolution" is not necessary. Just pull your own weight and actually DEBATE, don't simply preach while wondering why I'm not particularly responsive.

    24. Mai. 2010 Antworten
  • Alle 51 Shouts

Über mich

How has Nihilism changed your life? Not as much as Christ has changed mine, I am sure.

"The one who dies with the most toys.....dies."

"You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body."-C.S. Lewis

God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.
C. S. Lewis

A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.
C. S. Lewis

Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.
C. S. Lewis

If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair.
C. S. Lewis

"Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway."