[ref001]
apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/26/96
apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/26/96
[00:35] PostModrn (guest@kiowa.wildstar.net) joined
#apologetics.
[00:37] Acolyte (st_aidan@199.171.190.3) joined #apologetics.
[00:37] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu
[00:37] hello.
[00:37] hullo
[00:38] I have seen your web site.
[00:38] I have read your logs.
[00:38] really
[00:38] I remain unconvinced.
[00:38] me?
[00:38] IC and what are you?
[00:38] a non-theist.
[00:38] what type?
[00:39] what are my choices?
[00:39] don't you know?
[00:39] how can I know?
[00:39] good question
[00:39] indeed
[00:40] r u an atheist?
[00:40] pantheist?
[00:40] what?
[00:40] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip97.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined
#apologetics.
[00:40] re pascoe
[00:40] hello.
[00:40] I am a non-theist
[00:40] hello, pascoe.
[00:40] brb
[00:40] PostModrn: wow.
[00:41] pascoe: he asked.
[00:42] PostModrn: I am impressed that you
did not tackle the claim of atheism as many try to
do.
[00:42] hmmm.
[00:42] what epistemology do you hold to?
[00:42] PostModrn: non-theist is so much more
appropriate for most people since they are not prepared
to defend the atheistic claim.
[00:43] Acolyte: that we cannot know what
we think we know.
[00:43] are you a naturalist?
[00:43] define knowledge
[00:43] pascoe: indeed.
[00:43] PostModrn (guest@kiowa.wildstar.net) left irc:
WildStar public access IRC. telnet telnet.wildstar.net
login: guest
[00:44] how do you know pascoe?
[00:45] PostModrn (guest@kiowa.wildstar.net) joined
#apologetics.
[00:45] Acolyte: he kinda admitted it didn't
he?
[00:45] are you a naturalist?
[00:45] define knowledge
[00:45] sorry, I have a time limit here.
[00:45] ic
[00:45] PostModrn: me too and its about up.
8(
[00:45] please tell me what did not convince
you?
[00:46] I might be a naturalist. and knowledge
is the certainty of knowing.
[00:46] how is that not circular?
[00:46] Acolyte: the transcendental argument.
[00:46] ic, what about the transcendental argument?
[00:47] the idea that to know anything, one
must presuppose theism.
[00:47] ok, what in particular?
[00:47] that IS in particular
[00:47] that seems to general to me
[00:47] please elaborate
[00:48] one cannot KNOW anything. Therefore,
the argument that one must presuppose theism to know
anything falls short.
[00:48] Achimoth (adarcaan@dal36-04.ppp.iadfw.net)
joined #apologetics.
[00:48] hello Achimoth. 8)
[00:48] how do you come to the conclusion that
no one cannot know anything?
[00:48] i figured you all headed over here....
[00:49] knowledge requires certainty, which
we cannot possess
[00:49] are you certain of that?
[00:49] nope
[00:49] because I CAN'T be.
[00:50] then how do you justify that claim?
[00:50] how do you know you can't be ?
[00:50] Acolyte: he is certain we cannot be
certain. 8)
[00:50] I don't pretend to. I don't know
that I can't be. Because I can't be.
[00:50] re
[00:50] oh my goodness.
[00:50] hello ProfG
[00:51] Postie for dinner?
[00:51] :-)
[00:51] kinda self defeating, you can't be
but you don't know it, then why do youhold to what
you don't know?
[00:51] I have been to your web page, ProfG.
[00:51] seems like an unjustified claim
[00:52] for the same reason that all do.
One cannot know, therefore one can only hold to that
which one cannot know.
[00:52] so why not believe in Theism then?
[00:52] if everything is meaningless, why not
construct a myth?
[00:52] seems like you have
[00:53] You really *are* postie, aren't you?
[00:53] Theism requires "knowing"
[00:53] indeed.
[00:53] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip97.csrv.uidaho.edu) left
irc: Read error to pascoe[xslip97.csrv.uidaho.edu]:
Connection reset by peer
[00:53] well again that depends on a CERTAIN
defintion of knowledge
[00:53] whcih I reject
[00:53] I am not a Modernist either
[00:53] I am a NON-Modernist
[00:53] I reject STRICT foundationalism
[00:54] Pstmodern, you are still a modernist
tho
[00:54] you are still working off of Descartes
epistemology
[00:54] in essence
[00:54] Action: ProfG isn't really here, sorry
[00:54] if your claims to knowledge that you
don't and cannot know are unjustified, why believe
them at all?
[00:55] PostModrn (guest@kiowa.wildstar.net) left irc:
Write error to PostModrn[kiowa.wildstar.net], closing
link
[00:56] hmmmm
[00:56] Action: ProfG wishes he had the time to spend
with Postie
----------------------------------------------------------
[01:25] Science doesn't deal in proof; it
deals in evidence. One thing evolutieon has lots of.
[01:25] heh
[01:25] creation is archaology origin science?
[01:25] Fauxreal: sure
[01:25] pascoe it uses the methodology which
makes it a science
[01:25] I do commend you for your debate tactics.
[01:26] Acolyte: strictly speaking I disagree.
8)
[01:26] Acolyte: Probably since it deals
with events that happened once in the past and you
can't observe them. Origin sciences deal not with
falsifiability but with probability.
[01:26] Aco...this is a test of the IRC humor
broadcasting system...this is only a test...."This guy
walks into a bar with a duck under one arm....."
[01:26] pascoe streictly speaking you're wrong
:)
[01:26] Acolyte: the requirement of strict
science is repeatability.
[01:26] Acolyte: Music, too, uses methodology.
;)
[01:26] Acolyte: but then again some people
think politics is a science. 8)
[01:26] Deanr2 (deanh@KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM) joined
#apologetics.
[01:26] the requirement of strict science is
repeatability.
[01:26] fauxreal not any methology, I said
THE methodology.
[01:26] the requirement of strict science is
repeatability.
[01:27] hey, pascoe, I resemble that remark
[01:27] ProfG: I noticed. 8)
[01:27] heh
[01:27] ooooof...
[01:27] hi Deanr2
[01:27] :-)
[01:27] Then I hate to say it, but Henry Miller
repeated the incipient stages of life.
[01:28] PageMastr (user@whx-ca5-24.ix.netcom.com) joined
#apologetics.
[01:28] Henry Miller repeated the incipient stages
of life.
[01:28] Henry Miller repeated the incipient stages
of life.
[01:28] cassidy Scott is reading Chilton
[01:28] FauxReal: hahahahahahaah You have
no idea what you are talking about.
[01:28] FauxReal: embryology was refuted.
8)
[01:28] the formation of proteins from amino
acids.
[01:28] what's the topic
[01:28] whats the diffence
[01:28] who care???
[01:28] faux I am an evolutionist and you are
in error on that point
[01:28] repetitiveness, Page
[01:28] FauxReal: All he did was make amino
acids. Hardly the incipient stages of life.
[01:28] who knows
[01:28] Aco...your long-term investment in
scott is admirable...
[01:28] Creation, the amino acids they got
all make life impossible, they kill life
[01:28] cassidy what do youmean?
[01:28] DEANR, are you even here?
[01:29] fauxreal: how about the formation
of RNA from neucleotides, before proteins?
[01:29] electrolyte
[01:29] hmmm...
[01:29] shock
[01:29] Miller did not justify his use of electricity
in his experiments.
[01:29] FauxReal: No, no proteins were formed.
only amino acids. The closest was Sydney Fox who
got what he called "proteinoids" which are a poor example
of proteins.
[01:29] sma
[01:29] Sorry, that was stanlyey miller.
[01:29] somebody tell Deanr he's an op now. sheesh.
I'm going to bed.
[01:29] tibc
[01:29] profg ok
[01:29] thanks
[01:29] nite poof
[01:29] nothing more than what I said. I find
it difficult to stick to one person especially when
they drag their feet for so long.
[01:30] prof
[01:30] PageMastr (user@whx-ca5-24.ix.netcom.com) left
#apologetics.
[01:30] hey, he called me a poof
[01:30] nite poofg
[01:30] bye ProfG. 8)
[01:30] :-)
[01:30] bye profg
[01:30] Deanr (deanh@KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM) left irc:
Ping timeout for Deanr[KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM]
[01:30] I'll kick the whole lot of ya
[01:30] blah
[01:30] Acolyte: Not all. But a lot of them.
They did get the 20 (not in the same experiment mind
you) but along with 50 different non-biological amino
acids. That creates big problems when you only find
20 in biological systems. H
ow do you select for those..
[01:30] :-)
[01:30] no works of supererogation for you!
[01:30] Action: Cassidy_ runs for the hills...
[01:30] Deanr2 (deanh@KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM) left irc:
Ping timeout for Deanr2[KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM]
[01:30] Acolyte: 20 out of the plethera that
are there.
[01:30] Deanr (deanh@KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM) joined #apologetics.
[01:30] re deanr
[01:31] According to my biology book, he synthesized
those amino acids which, in part, make up an organism.
[01:31] deanr y ou're an op here
[01:31] re
[01:31] fauxreal yeah it took intelligence
to do it too
[01:31] Mode change '+o Deanr ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu
[01:31] finally
[01:31] hey thanks! :)
[01:31] FauxReal: bricks, in part, make up
a building. 8)
[01:31] FauxReal: Amino acids = life??????????
[01:31] deanr now, see hwo good I am to you.
(You may kiss the ring now.)
[01:31] Cassidy and Deanr: I now need bios and
pics from you for the Web page.
[01:31] FauxReal: Not
[01:32] creation I said incipient stages.
[01:32] AND PASCOE.
[01:32] Aco...in a few years perhaps.
[01:32] ProfG: you resemble science.
[01:32] Action: Deanr takes Acolyte's ring and.....
stuff's it in his shirt pocket. :)
[01:32] I should have added in the formation
of life from abiotic substances. ;)
[01:32] cassidy, it will take many yrs for
me to become a Bishop
[01:32] prof...youu got it.
[01:32] heh
[01:32] deanr you'll see
[01:32] ;)
[01:32] FauxReal: Yeah well, you are going
to have a LOT of problems with the concerto effect
and the law of mass action.
[01:32] Miller did not justify his use of electricity
in his experiments.
[01:32] creation: if i remember by Nova episodes
properly, isnt there a problem with the formation of
RNA from nucleotides? as Enzymes are required to replicate
RNA and enzymes are made BY RNA?
[01:32] prof...how long should the bio be
(how short)?
[01:32] WE ARE ANGLICAN. RESISTENCE IS FUTILE.
YOU WILL CONVERT! ahahahahha
[01:33] hehehe
[01:33] Cassidy: look at the bios on the page
now for help
[01:33] lol
[01:33] pascoe Storms. We see them on other
planets.
[01:33] hehe
[01:33] Action: pascoe is Christian, already born again.
8)
[01:33] FauxReal: you mean lightening?
[01:33] prof...whats the adress?
[01:33] FauxReal: Concerto effect!!! The
same energy that creates also destroys!!!!
[01:33] pascoe which is better to drive a car
with four wheels and an engine or a new Acura?
[01:33] MrBell (Micah@ppp209.ihug.co.nz) joined #apologetics.
[01:33] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[01:33] FauxReal: if Miller had used lightening
it would have destroyed his lab and burnt up all his
ingredients.
[01:34] Achimoth: Yeah, it is the problem
of what came first, protien or nucleic acids. Besides,
you have a problem with racemic mixtures.
[01:34] Aco: "I am Pentium of Borg. Division is
futile. You will be approximated."
[01:34] cech found that modern cells use RNA
catalysts called ribozymes to catalyze the synthesis
of new RNA.
[01:34] creation Prometheus Press sent me a
new bk against creationism
[01:34] LOL
[01:34] hehe
[01:34] profg Anlgicanism is better
[01:35] ;)
[01:35] Acolyte: four wheels and an engine
is better than a washer. 8)
[01:35] pascoe: He did it in a scale model.
[01:35] pascoe but you can't drive a washer
;)
[01:35] FauxReal: how do you scale a lightning
bolt?
[01:35] faux and he designed it too
[01:35] FauxReal: Cech Ribosomes have proteins
in them that are NECESSARY for the function of the
ribosome.
[01:35] gentlemen...I have an exam to study
for. I will catch you all on the flip-side.
[01:36] bye Cassidy_.
[01:36] byebyebyebyebyebyebyebye.
[01:36] by cass
[01:36] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@irv-ca22-20.ix.netcom.com)
left #apologetics.
[01:36] hmmmmm
[01:36] wanna have some fun?
[01:36] What that proved though is that you
don't need to have proteins to synthesyze RNA.
[01:37] Action: ProfG is falling asleep on his keyboard
[01:37] bye ProfG. 8)
[01:37] profg call me
[01:37] at work
[01:37] NOW
[01:37] asdf (sadf@GN-205-161-161-31.gulfnet.com) joined
#apologetics.
[01:37] ok?
[01:37] um... ok
[01:37] FauxReal: They also concluded that
the smallest RNA molecule that you could get that could
act as a functional catalyst is one that is about 400
nuceotides long. This is way to big for what the first
primordial RNA catalyst wa
s.
[01:38] zx (well@robertk.accessone.com) joined #apologetics.
[01:38] hey zx
[01:38] hello zx. 8)
[01:38] hi
[01:38] um... I need a number, Aco
[01:38] whats up
[01:38] FauxReal: But the question remains:
How do you get the RNA???? You still have the same
problems as you have when you are trying to get proteins.
[01:38] hello all
[01:38] ok
[01:39] nite all
[01:39] zx (well@robertk.accessone.com) left #apologetics.
[01:39] FauxReal: Concerto effect, Racemic
mixtures of left and right handed sugars, etc.
[01:39] Deanr (deanh@KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM) left irc:
Ping timeout for Deanr[KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM]
[01:39] FauxReal: how do you scale a lightning
bolt?
[01:40] protobionts.
[01:40] very carefully...
[01:40] pascoe: You can measure them now.
Just project it.
[01:40] asdf (sadf@GN-205-161-161-31.gulfnet.com) left
#apologetics.
[01:40] pascoe: Depends on what kind of atmosphere
you have. Was it mildly reducing? strongly reducing?
Oxidative?
[01:40] karen-1 (ajanssen@lbx-ca6-04.ix.netcom.com)
joined #apologetics.
[01:41] FauxReal: how does Miller justify electric
currents in his experiment tho? lightening would destroy
his lab and burn stuff.
[01:41] FauxReal: How do you keep all your
necessary elements in the atmosphere (methane, ammonia,
etc.)?
[01:41] pascoe lightning equals electrical
current...
[01:42] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial50.fiu.edu) left irc:
Ping timeout for ProfG[fiudial50.fiu.edu]
[01:42] MrBell (Micah@ppp209.ihug.co.nz) left #apologetics.
[01:42] Paladin (Adversary@ts40-7.homenet.ohio-state.edu)
joined #apologetics.
[01:42] FauxReal: yes, why didn't Miller use
lightening in his experiments then?
[01:42] Simple, he couldn't.
[01:43] FauxReal: If you don't have ozone,
then you don't have protection from the UV light.
YOur methane gets polymerized and you get an oil slick
1-10 meters thick all across the globe. YOur ammonia
would be photodestroyed into nit
rogen and hydrogen.
[01:43] greetings and salutations
[01:43] FauxReal: the reason he didn't use
lightning is because it would destroy his experiment.
[01:43] FauxReal: And what ever is left over
would have been absorbed into the ocean due to its
high solubility.
[01:43] Who said there was no ozone?
[01:43] FauxReal: There was no OXYGEN!!
[01:43] As far as I remember it, there wasn't
ozone...
[01:43] FauxReal: NO oxygen, no ozone
[01:43] pascoe Lightning striking a couple
glass tupes probably would.
[01:44] The UV light helped to act as a catalyst,
however, instead of being harmful
[01:44]
