School district in MI votes tomorrow night whether or not to allow ID

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin

You need O2 to make O3, correct? So without oxygen, there would have been no ozone layer in primitive earth, right?

No, you don't. All you need is a source of oxygen. The most likely source in a reductive atmosphere is...

c'mon Rip, show us your impressive knowledge of o-chem. Same with you LMK.

I'll give you several choices. Tell me which one is a likely source of oxygen in a reductive atmosphere and why:

A) Thioesters, R-SOO-R
B) Carboxylic acid, R-COOH
C) Elemental Oxygen, O2
D) Ketones and aldehydes, R-(C=O)-R and R-(C=O)-H
E) Epoxides, R-CO-R in sp3 bound rings
F) Phenols, RB-OH
G) Common non-terminal alcohols, R-(OH)-R
H) Terminal alcohols, R-OH (EtOH)
G) Acetone, HCOH

All of those contain oxygen that can be released and then ionized to O3. Some would readily do so in a reductive atmosphere.

So impress us all with your profound chemical knowledge.

Those of us with actual degrees in science (I, myself, am now in medical school) want to see if you really know your stuff or not.

So prove us wrong!

Still waiting for a mechanism for generating O2 in a reductive enviornment from the organic cmpds listed above.

He just did. There's a difference between having faith and being blind.

Besides. Ireally dont see your point. Even if there are points of evolution that aren't completely worked out yet, that doesnt disprove it. That's why scientists are still studying it. After all in Quantum mechancis, they're are plenty of phenomona that we cant explain yet. But that doesnt disprove QM. Same with Evolution, there is (contrary to what you posted in another thread) much evidence supporting it. That is why it is still around after all these years. There is no proof supporting ID other than some references to studies that make broad unsupported assumptions on the physical universe to attempt to show that the statistical prob of life evoloving to its curent state is slim. And then from that, they make the huge leap to the existense of an intelligent designer, which there is no evidence of.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin

You need O2 to make O3, correct? So without oxygen, there would have been no ozone layer in primitive earth, right?

No, you don't. All you need is a source of oxygen. The most likely source in a reductive atmosphere is...

c'mon Rip, show us your impressive knowledge of o-chem. Same with you LMK.

I'll give you several choices. Tell me which one is a likely source of oxygen in a reductive atmosphere and why:

A) Thioesters, R-SOO-R
B) Carboxylic acid, R-COOH
C) Elemental Oxygen, O2
D) Ketones and aldehydes, R-(C=O)-R and R-(C=O)-H
E) Epoxides, R-CO-R in sp3 bound rings
F) Phenols, RB-OH
G) Common non-terminal alcohols, R-(OH)-R
H) Terminal alcohols, R-OH (EtOH)
G) Acetone, HCOH

All of those contain oxygen that can be released and then ionized to O3. Some would readily do so in a reductive atmosphere.

So impress us all with your profound chemical knowledge.

Those of us with actual degrees in science (I, myself, am now in medical school) want to see if you really know your stuff or not.

So prove us wrong!

Still waiting for a mechanism for generating O2 in a reductive enviornment from the organic cmpds listed above.

He just did.

Where?

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin

You need O2 to make O3, correct? So without oxygen, there would have been no ozone layer in primitive earth, right?

No, you don't. All you need is a source of oxygen. The most likely source in a reductive atmosphere is...

c'mon Rip, show us your impressive knowledge of o-chem. Same with you LMK.

I'll give you several choices. Tell me which one is a likely source of oxygen in a reductive atmosphere and why:

A) Thioesters, R-SOO-R
B) Carboxylic acid, R-COOH
C) Elemental Oxygen, O2
D) Ketones and aldehydes, R-(C=O)-R and R-(C=O)-H
E) Epoxides, R-CO-R in sp3 bound rings
F) Phenols, RB-OH
G) Common non-terminal alcohols, R-(OH)-R
H) Terminal alcohols, R-OH (EtOH)
G) Acetone, HCOH

All of those contain oxygen that can be released and then ionized to O3. Some would readily do so in a reductive atmosphere.

So impress us all with your profound chemical knowledge.

Those of us with actual degrees in science (I, myself, am now in medical school) want to see if you really know your stuff or not.

So prove us wrong!

Still waiting for a mechanism for generating O2 in a reductive enviornment from the organic cmpds listed above.

He just did.

Where?

I think that was the point. He narrowed down what your choices were and was expecting you to actually educate your self.

And you didn't address my post after that. Even if there are points of evolution that aren't completely worked out yet, that doesnt disprove it. Theres quite a bit of evidence to support it. The fuzzy details are why its still being studied. But many theories inculding Quantum Mechanics are just as fuzzy on the details. But that in no way invalidates them. Do you think we should stop teaching Quantum Mechanics because a consistent theory relating it to classical physics has not been worked out yet? Again, that's why its still studied... cause we dont have all the answers. By your arguement we should start teaching some alternative form of Quantum mechanics called devine mechanics that says that the inconstencies relating classical and quantum mechanics can be explained as the will of an "intelligent operater".

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin

You need O2 to make O3, correct? So without oxygen, there would have been no ozone layer in primitive earth, right?

No, you don't. All you need is a source of oxygen. The most likely source in a reductive atmosphere is...

c'mon Rip, show us your impressive knowledge of o-chem. Same with you LMK.

I'll give you several choices. Tell me which one is a likely source of oxygen in a reductive atmosphere and why:

A) Thioesters, R-SOO-R
B) Carboxylic acid, R-COOH
C) Elemental Oxygen, O2
D) Ketones and aldehydes, R-(C=O)-R and R-(C=O)-H
E) Epoxides, R-CO-R in sp3 bound rings
F) Phenols, RB-OH
G) Common non-terminal alcohols, R-(OH)-R
H) Terminal alcohols, R-OH (EtOH)
G) Acetone, HCOH

All of those contain oxygen that can be released and then ionized to O3. Some would readily do so in a reductive atmosphere.

So impress us all with your profound chemical knowledge.

Those of us with actual degrees in science (I, myself, am now in medical school) want to see if you really know your stuff or not.

So prove us wrong!

Still waiting for a mechanism for generating O2 in a reductive enviornment from the organic cmpds listed above.

He just did.

Where?

I think that was the point. He narrowed down what your choices were and was expecting you to actually educate your self.

Show me the mechanism.

And you didn't address my post after that. Even if there are points of evolution that aren't completely worked out yet, that doesnt disprove it. Theres quite a bit of evidence to support it. The fuzzy details are why its still being studied. But many theories inculding Quantum Mechanics are just as fuzzy on the details. But that in no way invalidates them. Do you think we should stop teaching Quantum Mechanics because a consistent theory relating it to classical physics has not been worked out yet? Again, that's why its still studied... cause we dont have all the answers. By your arguement we should start teaching some alternative form of Quantum mechanics called devine mechanics that says that the inconstencies relating classical and quantum mechanics can be explained as the will of an "intelligent operater".

Al of the scientific evindence points to a designer.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin

You need O2 to make O3, correct? So without oxygen, there would have been no ozone layer in primitive earth, right?

No, you don't. All you need is a source of oxygen. The most likely source in a reductive atmosphere is...

c'mon Rip, show us your impressive knowledge of o-chem. Same with you LMK.

I'll give you several choices. Tell me which one is a likely source of oxygen in a reductive atmosphere and why:

A) Thioesters, R-SOO-R
B) Carboxylic acid, R-COOH
C) Elemental Oxygen, O2
D) Ketones and aldehydes, R-(C=O)-R and R-(C=O)-H
E) Epoxides, R-CO-R in sp3 bound rings
F) Phenols, RB-OH
G) Common non-terminal alcohols, R-(OH)-R
H) Terminal alcohols, R-OH (EtOH)
G) Acetone, HCOH

All of those contain oxygen that can be released and then ionized to O3. Some would readily do so in a reductive atmosphere.

So impress us all with your profound chemical knowledge.

Those of us with actual degrees in science (I, myself, am now in medical school) want to see if you really know your stuff or not.

So prove us wrong!

Still waiting for a mechanism for generating O2 in a reductive enviornment from the organic cmpds listed above.

He just did.

Where?

I think that was the point. He narrowed down what your choices were and was expecting you to actually educate your self.

Show me the mechanism.

And you didn't address my post after that. Even if there are points of evolution that aren't completely worked out yet, that doesnt disprove it. Theres quite a bit of evidence to support it. The fuzzy details are why its still being studied. But many theories inculding Quantum Mechanics are just as fuzzy on the details. But that in no way invalidates them. Do you think we should stop teaching Quantum Mechanics because a consistent theory relating it to classical physics has not been worked out yet? Again, that's why its still studied... cause we dont have all the answers. By your arguement we should start teaching some alternative form of Quantum mechanics called devine mechanics that says that the inconstencies relating classical and quantum mechanics can be explained as the will of an "intelligent operater".

Al of the scientific evindence points to a designer.

Let's make a deal. I show you how an epoxide can form O2 in a reductive atmosphere and you then go through the list and identify the other such molecules that can release O2 in a reductive atmosphere and why they can...

I show you mine, you show me yours.

Time to put up or shut up.

And by the way, you'll have to provide me with the scientific evidence that you cite when you claim that "Al of the scientific evindence points to a designer"

So far I am unaware of any scientific evidence that supports such a conclusion, much less "all" of it doing so.

If that were the case the scientific literature would be full of DI articles, you know, peer-reviewed by other scientists and all.

 

[Emultra]

What does "ID" stand for?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin

You need O2 to make O3, correct? So without oxygen, there would have been no ozone layer in primitive earth, right?

No, you don't. All you need is a source of oxygen. The most likely source in a reductive atmosphere is...

c'mon Rip, show us your impressive knowledge of o-chem. Same with you LMK.

I'll give you several choices. Tell me which one is a likely source of oxygen in a reductive atmosphere and why:

A) Thioesters, R-SOO-R
B) Carboxylic acid, R-COOH
C) Elemental Oxygen, O2
D) Ketones and aldehydes, R-(C=O)-R and R-(C=O)-H
E) Epoxides, R-CO-R in sp3 bound rings
F) Phenols, RB-OH
G) Common non-terminal alcohols, R-(OH)-R
H) Terminal alcohols, R-OH (EtOH)
G) Acetone, HCOH

All of those contain oxygen that can be released and then ionized to O3. Some would readily do so in a reductive atmosphere.

So impress us all with your profound chemical knowledge.

Those of us with actual degrees in science (I, myself, am now in medical school) want to see if you really know your stuff or not.

So prove us wrong!

Still waiting for a mechanism for generating O2 in a reductive enviornment from the organic cmpds listed above.

He just did.

Where?

I think that was the point. He narrowed down what your choices were and was expecting you to actually educate your self.

Show me the mechanism.

And you didn't address my post after that. Even if there are points of evolution that aren't completely worked out yet, that doesnt disprove it. Theres quite a bit of evidence to support it. The fuzzy details are why its still being studied. But many theories inculding Quantum Mechanics are just as fuzzy on the details. But that in no way invalidates them. Do you think we should stop teaching Quantum Mechanics because a consistent theory relating it to classical physics has not been worked out yet? Again, that's why its still studied... cause we dont have all the answers. By your arguement we should start teaching some alternative form of Quantum mechanics called devine mechanics that says that the inconstencies relating classical and quantum mechanics can be explained as the will of an "intelligent operater".

Al of the scientific evindence points to a designer.

Let's make a deal. I show you how an epoxide can form O2 in a reductive atmosphere and you then go through the list and identify the other such molecules that can release O2 in a reductive atmosphere and why they can...

I show you mine, you show me yours.

Time to put up or shut up.

And by the way, you'll have to provide me with the scientific evidence that you cite when you claim that "Al of the scientific evindence points to a designer"

So far I am unaware of any scientific evidence that supports such a conclusion, much less "all" of it doing so.

If that were the case the scientific literature would be full of DI articles, you know, peer-reviewed by other scientists and all.

Take the fossil record for example. Evolutionary palentologist have been unearthing fossils in search of missing links since the middle of the 19th century. Yet, no transitional forms have been uncovered. The fossil record is consistent with life suddenly appearing on earth, fully-formed.

I don't think that we need parallel threads.

Link

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin

You need O2 to make O3, correct? So without oxygen, there would have been no ozone layer in primitive earth, right?

No, you don't. All you need is a source of oxygen. The most likely source in a reductive atmosphere is...

c'mon Rip, show us your impressive knowledge of o-chem. Same with you LMK.

I'll give you several choices. Tell me which one is a likely source of oxygen in a reductive atmosphere and why:

A) Thioesters, R-SOO-R
B) Carboxylic acid, R-COOH
C) Elemental Oxygen, O2
D) Ketones and aldehydes, R-(C=O)-R and R-(C=O)-H
E) Epoxides, R-CO-R in sp3 bound rings
F) Phenols, RB-OH
G) Common non-terminal alcohols, R-(OH)-R
H) Terminal alcohols, R-OH (EtOH)
G) Acetone, HCOH

All of those contain oxygen that can be released and then ionized to O3. Some would readily do so in a reductive atmosphere.

So impress us all with your profound chemical knowledge.

Those of us with actual degrees in science (I, myself, am now in medical school) want to see if you really know your stuff or not.

So prove us wrong!

Still waiting for a mechanism for generating O2 in a reductive enviornment from the organic cmpds listed above.

He just did.

Where?

I think that was the point. He narrowed down what your choices were and was expecting you to actually educate your self.

Show me the mechanism.

And you didn't address my post after that. Even if there are points of evolution that aren't completely worked out yet, that doesnt disprove it. Theres quite a bit of evidence to support it. The fuzzy details are why its still being studied. But many theories inculding Quantum Mechanics are just as fuzzy on the details. But that in no way invalidates them. Do you think we should stop teaching Quantum Mechanics because a consistent theory relating it to classical physics has not been worked out yet? Again, that's why its still studied... cause we dont have all the answers. By your arguement we should start teaching some alternative form of Quantum mechanics called devine mechanics that says that the inconstencies relating classical and quantum mechanics can be explained as the will of an "intelligent operater".

Al of the scientific evindence points to a designer.

Let's make a deal. I show you how an epoxide can form O2 in a reductive atmosphere and you then go through the list and identify the other such molecules that can release O2 in a reductive atmosphere and why they can...

I show you mine, you show me yours.

Time to put up or shut up.

And by the way, you'll have to provide me with the scientific evidence that you cite when you claim that "Al of the scientific evindence points to a designer"

So far I am unaware of any scientific evidence that supports such a conclusion, much less "all" of it doing so.

If that were the case the scientific literature would be full of DI articles, you know, peer-reviewed by other scientists and all.

Take the fossil record for example. Evolutionary palentologist have been unearthing fossils in search of missing links since the middle of the 19th century. Yet, no transitional forms have been uncovered. The fossil record is consistent with life suddenly appearing on earth, fully-formed.

I don't think that we need parallel threads.

Link

Hey retard,

Fossils aren't alive. They are dead. And have been for millions upon millions of years.

So in your little world you would only be correct in saying that the fossil record is consistent with already dead things and very few living things suddenly appearing on earth, fully formed.

So God, whoops I mean "the designer," had decided to litter the earth with the fossils of already dead things. Brilliant plan, they are obviously there to test our faith.

And all of this ignores the fact that fossils have been dated back from thousands of years all the way to billions; none of which is consistent with life suddenly appearing 6000 years ago. I mean, hell, there are ashes of campfires in China that date back 10,000 years, and similarly old cave paintings in France.

 

[Dubb]

/quick interjection before I go back to OT

Rip, I have determined that it is statistically nearly impossible for a human being to be so stubborn in the face of existing evidence. Therefore, I have decided that you are infact a brick wall that can type, and were built by a highly intelligent mason.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Dubb
/quick interjection before I go back to OT

Rip, I have determined that it is statistically nearly impossible for a human being to be so stubborn in the face of existing evidence. Therefore, I have decided that you are infact a brick wall that can type, and were built by a highly intelligent mason.

What evidence are you talking about? Please share it with me.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin

You need O2 to make O3, correct? So without oxygen, there would have been no ozone layer in primitive earth, right?

No, you don't. All you need is a source of oxygen. The most likely source in a reductive atmosphere is...

c'mon Rip, show us your impressive knowledge of o-chem. Same with you LMK.

I'll give you several choices. Tell me which one is a likely source of oxygen in a reductive atmosphere and why:

A) Thioesters, R-SOO-R
B) Carboxylic acid, R-COOH
C) Elemental Oxygen, O2
D) Ketones and aldehydes, R-(C=O)-R and R-(C=O)-H
E) Epoxides, R-CO-R in sp3 bound rings
F) Phenols, RB-OH
G) Common non-terminal alcohols, R-(OH)-R
H) Terminal alcohols, R-OH (EtOH)
G) Acetone, HCOH

All of those contain oxygen that can be released and then ionized to O3. Some would readily do so in a reductive atmosphere.

So impress us all with your profound chemical knowledge.

Those of us with actual degrees in science (I, myself, am now in medical school) want to see if you really know your stuff or not.

So prove us wrong!

Still waiting for a mechanism for generating O2 in a reductive enviornment from the organic cmpds listed above.

He just did.

Where?

I think that was the point. He narrowed down what your choices were and was expecting you to actually educate your self.

Show me the mechanism.

And you didn't address my post after that. Even if there are points of evolution that aren't completely worked out yet, that doesnt disprove it. Theres quite a bit of evidence to support it. The fuzzy details are why its still being studied. But many theories inculding Quantum Mechanics are just as fuzzy on the details. But that in no way invalidates them. Do you think we should stop teaching Quantum Mechanics because a consistent theory relating it to classical physics has not been worked out yet? Again, that's why its still studied... cause we dont have all the answers. By your arguement we should start teaching some alternative form of Quantum mechanics called devine mechanics that says that the inconstencies relating classical and quantum mechanics can be explained as the will of an "intelligent operater".

Al of the scientific evindence points to a designer.

Let's make a deal. I show you how an epoxide can form O2 in a reductive atmosphere and you then go through the list and identify the other such molecules that can release O2 in a reductive atmosphere and why they can...

I show you mine, you show me yours.

Time to put up or shut up.

And by the way, you'll have to provide me with the scientific evidence that you cite when you claim that "Al of the scientific evindence points to a designer"

So far I am unaware of any scientific evidence that supports such a conclusion, much less "all" of it doing so.

If that were the case the scientific literature would be full of DI articles, you know, peer-reviewed by other scientists and all.

Take the fossil record for example. Evolutionary palentologist have been unearthing fossils in search of missing links since the middle of the 19th century. Yet, no transitional forms have been uncovered. The fossil record is consistent with life suddenly appearing on earth, fully-formed.

I don't think that we need parallel threads.

Link

Hey retard,

Fossils aren't alive. They are dead. And have been for millions upon millions of years.

So in your little world you would only be correct in saying that the fossil record is consistent with already dead things and very few living things suddenly appearing on earth, fully formed.

So God, whoops I mean "the designer," had decided to litter the earth with the fossils of already dead things. Brilliant plan, they are obviously there to test our faith.

And all of this ignores the fact that fossils have been dated back from thousands of years all the way to billions; none of which is consistent with life suddenly appearing 6000 years ago. I mean, hell, there are ashes of campfires in China that date back 10,000 years, and similarly old cave paintings in France.

That's right, the fossil evidence supports the conclusion that species suddenly appeared, fully-formed and remained the same over the longest geological periods.

There is no evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Dubb
/quick interjection before I go back to OT

Rip, I have determined that it is statistically nearly impossible for a human being to be so stubborn in the face of existing evidence. Therefore, I have decided that you are infact a brick wall that can type, and were built by a highly intelligent mason.

What evidence are you talking about? Please share it with me.

Everytime someone shows you evidence, or answers one of your 'challenges', you just ignore it and repeat the question. Actually, that's worse than 'ignoring' it, you just refuse to acknowledge it. It's very difficult to argue or debate with someone who ignores everything you say.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Dubb
/quick interjection before I go back to OT

Rip, I have determined that it is statistically nearly impossible for a human being to be so stubborn in the face of existing evidence. Therefore, I have decided that you are infact a brick wall that can type, and were built by a highly intelligent mason.

What evidence are you talking about? Please share it with me.

Everytime someone shows you evidence, or answers one of your 'challenges', you just ignore it and repeat the question. Actually, that's worse than 'ignoring' it, you just refuse to acknowledge it. It's very difficult to argue or debate with someone who ignores everything you say.

Then why do you bother?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

The same reason you go to a firing range. The targets aren't real there, either.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
That's right, the fossil evidence supports the conclusion that species suddenly appeared, fully-formed and remained the same over the longest geological periods.

There is no evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record.

what about dinos with feathers?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Riprorin
That's right, the fossil evidence supports the conclusion that species suddenly appeared, fully-formed and remained the same over the longest geological periods.

There is no evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record.

what about dinos with feathers?

The problem with the 'no transitional fossils' argument is that it assumes a transitional fossil should show some freakishly awkward animal, but in fact this would never happen (successfully). If you don't produce a useful change, the animal is unlikely to survive and reproduce, and the chances of one individual animal becoming fossilized are minute, if you were to find such a fossil, it would be of a 'deformed' rather than transitional animal. It seems obvious, but furry alligators probably weren't much a success - therefore no fossils

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Al of the scientific evindence points to a designer.

Then Share some with us. And again, you failed to answer my post.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Al of the scientific evindence points to a designer.

Then Share some with us. And again, you failed to answer my post.

I did.

If evolution were true, then the fossil record should be replete with intermediate species in the transformation of one species into another.

However, these "transformational forms" do not exist in the fossil record.

Rather, the fossil record shows that life appeared suddenly on earth, fully-formed.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin

You need O2 to make O3, correct? So without oxygen, there would have been no ozone layer in primitive earth, right?

No, you don't. All you need is a source of oxygen. The most likely source in a reductive atmosphere is...

c'mon Rip, show us your impressive knowledge of o-chem. Same with you LMK.

I'll give you several choices. Tell me which one is a likely source of oxygen in a reductive atmosphere and why:

A) Thioesters, R-SOO-R
B) Carboxylic acid, R-COOH
C) Elemental Oxygen, O2
D) Ketones and aldehydes, R-(C=O)-R and R-(C=O)-H
E) Epoxides, R-CO-R in sp3 bound rings
F) Phenols, RB-OH
G) Common non-terminal alcohols, R-(OH)-R
H) Terminal alcohols, R-OH (EtOH)
G) Acetone, HCOH

All of those contain oxygen that can be released and then ionized to O3. Some would readily do so in a reductive atmosphere.

So impress us all with your profound chemical knowledge.

Those of us with actual degrees in science (I, myself, am now in medical school) want to see if you really know your stuff or not.

So prove us wrong!

Still waiting for a mechanism for generating O2 in a reductive enviornment from the organic cmpds listed above.

He just did.

Where?

I think that was the point. He narrowed down what your choices were and was expecting you to actually educate your self.

Show me the mechanism.

And you didn't address my post after that. Even if there are points of evolution that aren't completely worked out yet, that doesnt disprove it. Theres quite a bit of evidence to support it. The fuzzy details are why its still being studied. But many theories inculding Quantum Mechanics are just as fuzzy on the details. But that in no way invalidates them. Do you think we should stop teaching Quantum Mechanics because a consistent theory relating it to classical physics has not been worked out yet? Again, that's why its still studied... cause we dont have all the answers. By your arguement we should start teaching some alternative form of Quantum mechanics called devine mechanics that says that the inconstencies relating classical and quantum mechanics can be explained as the will of an "intelligent operater".

Al of the scientific evindence points to a designer.

Let's make a deal. I show you how an epoxide can form O2 in a reductive atmosphere and you then go through the list and identify the other such molecules that can release O2 in a reductive atmosphere and why they can...

I show you mine, you show me yours.

Time to put up or shut up.

And by the way, you'll have to provide me with the scientific evidence that you cite when you claim that "Al of the scientific evindence points to a designer"

So far I am unaware of any scientific evidence that supports such a conclusion, much less "all" of it doing so.

If that were the case the scientific literature would be full of DI articles, you know, peer-reviewed by other scientists and all.

Take the fossil record for example. Evolutionary palentologist have been unearthing fossils in search of missing links since the middle of the 19th century. Yet, no transitional forms have been uncovered. The fossil record is consistent with life suddenly appearing on earth, fully-formed.

I don't think that we need parallel threads.

Link

Hey retard,

Fossils aren't alive. They are dead. And have been for millions upon millions of years.

So in your little world you would only be correct in saying that the fossil record is consistent with already dead things and very few living things suddenly appearing on earth, fully formed.

So God, whoops I mean "the designer," had decided to litter the earth with the fossils of already dead things. Brilliant plan, they are obviously there to test our faith.

And all of this ignores the fact that fossils have been dated back from thousands of years all the way to billions; none of which is consistent with life suddenly appearing 6000 years ago. I mean, hell, there are ashes of campfires in China that date back 10,000 years, and similarly old cave paintings in France.

Just wondering, do you consider everyone who doesn't believe in macroevolution a "retard"?

Do you consider these scientists and MDs "retards"?

Creation Scientists

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin

You need O2 to make O3, correct? So without oxygen, there would have been no ozone layer in primitive earth, right?

No, you don't. All you need is a source of oxygen. The most likely source in a reductive atmosphere is...

c'mon Rip, show us your impressive knowledge of o-chem. Same with you LMK.

I'll give you several choices. Tell me which one is a likely source of oxygen in a reductive atmosphere and why:

A) Thioesters, R-SOO-R
B) Carboxylic acid, R-COOH
C) Elemental Oxygen, O2
D) Ketones and aldehydes, R-(C=O)-R and R-(C=O)-H
E) Epoxides, R-CO-R in sp3 bound rings
F) Phenols, RB-OH
G) Common non-terminal alcohols, R-(OH)-R
H) Terminal alcohols, R-OH (EtOH)
G) Acetone, HCOH

All of those contain oxygen that can be released and then ionized to O3. Some would readily do so in a reductive atmosphere.

So impress us all with your profound chemical knowledge.

Those of us with actual degrees in science (I, myself, am now in medical school) want to see if you really know your stuff or not.

So prove us wrong!

Still waiting for a mechanism for generating O2 in a reductive enviornment from the organic cmpds listed above.

He just did.

Where?

I think that was the point. He narrowed down what your choices were and was expecting you to actually educate your self.

Show me the mechanism.

And you didn't address my post after that. Even if there are points of evolution that aren't completely worked out yet, that doesnt disprove it. Theres quite a bit of evidence to support it. The fuzzy details are why its still being studied. But many theories inculding Quantum Mechanics are just as fuzzy on the details. But that in no way invalidates them. Do you think we should stop teaching Quantum Mechanics because a consistent theory relating it to classical physics has not been worked out yet? Again, that's why its still studied... cause we dont have all the answers. By your arguement we should start teaching some alternative form of Quantum mechanics called devine mechanics that says that the inconstencies relating classical and quantum mechanics can be explained as the will of an "intelligent operater".

Al of the scientific evindence points to a designer.

Let's make a deal. I show you how an epoxide can form O2 in a reductive atmosphere and you then go through the list and identify the other such molecules that can release O2 in a reductive atmosphere and why they can...

I show you mine, you show me yours.

Time to put up or shut up.

And by the way, you'll have to provide me with the scientific evidence that you cite when you claim that "Al of the scientific evindence points to a designer"

So far I am unaware of any scientific evidence that supports such a conclusion, much less "all" of it doing so.

If that were the case the scientific literature would be full of DI articles, you know, peer-reviewed by other scientists and all.

Take the fossil record for example. Evolutionary palentologist have been unearthing fossils in search of missing links since the middle of the 19th century. Yet, no transitional forms have been uncovered. The fossil record is consistent with life suddenly appearing on earth, fully-formed.

I don't think that we need parallel threads.

Link

Hey retard,

Fossils aren't alive. They are dead. And have been for millions upon millions of years.

So in your little world you would only be correct in saying that the fossil record is consistent with already dead things and very few living things suddenly appearing on earth, fully formed.

So God, whoops I mean "the designer," had decided to litter the earth with the fossils of already dead things. Brilliant plan, they are obviously there to test our faith.

And all of this ignores the fact that fossils have been dated back from thousands of years all the way to billions; none of which is consistent with life suddenly appearing 6000 years ago. I mean, hell, there are ashes of campfires in China that date back 10,000 years, and similarly old cave paintings in France.

Just wondering, do you consider everyone who doesn't believe in macroevolution a "retard"?

Do you consider these scientists and MDs "retards"?

Creation Scientists

See this is my problem with your argurments. You completely ignored the meat of his post. You claim to have shown evidence that fossils appeared fully formed, yet everytime someone has explained the falicy of your arguement you ignore them OR you simply respond to some other aspect of thier post. Its a waste to present any arguement to you because you dont actually respond to it. And I'm not really refering to the above explenation, you've been offered explenations in the other thread as well.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Al of the scientific evindence points to a designer.

only if your close minded enough to not think of the big picture. it's a big universe out there - it's very likely that conditions were very close or right on for life to exist (in a self-sustaining manner) in other places so of course it seems like it was "designed."

in all fairness i find a god to be unnecessary for existence of everything - it's possible but certainly not required as so far it seems that this being set things up with certain physical rules in place that we seem to be capable of understanding to some degree and testing for reproducibility. god or no god we live in a universe that is explanable and testable. teaching that this god exists is not required for science so again - the argument is over. ID isn't science and shouldn't be in the science classroom.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Al of the scientific evindence points to a designer.

Then Share some with us. And again, you failed to answer my post.

I did.

If evolution were true, then the fossil record should be replete with intermediate species in the transformation of one species into another.

However, these "transformational forms" do not exist in the fossil record.

Rather, the fossil record shows that life appeared suddenly on earth, fully-formed.

Except that there are plenty of transitional forms, which have been pointed out to you in the Theory of Evolution thread, but which you repeatedly refuse to reply to.

 

[OutHouse]

ummm im not familar with the term ID. what is it.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Citrix
ummm im not familar with the term ID. what is it.

in theology terms its used to fill up the gap science leaves behind

in science terms its crap


Intelligent Design

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Citrix
ummm im not familar with the term ID. what is it.

in theology terms its used to fill up the gap science leaves behind

in science terms its crap


Intelligent Design

thank you.