nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 377:
Line 377: + − + + + + +
Revert post making slanderous allegations with no attempt to justify them. And blocking user (duplicate account) for doing so.
::::::: No, it's not a claim of incredulity. The ripples do not contain a message, because there is no specified complexity, as Conservative mentions. The ripples are the result of natural processes, whereas the information on DNA is not, because the DNA is not arranged by natural laws, but by machines that put it together according to a code. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::: No, it's not a claim of incredulity. The ripples do not contain a message, because there is no specified complexity, as Conservative mentions. The ripples are the result of natural processes, whereas the information on DNA is not, because the DNA is not arranged by natural laws, but by machines that put it together according to a code. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::Actually DNA is a self-assembling molecule, arranged by natural laws. Many common pieces of lab equipment use this fact to replicate, expand and sequence DNA molecules. If you take the four bases, sugars and phosphates and place them in a simple solution they will bind to form a DNA molecule. The reason for this is that the DNA configuration is a lower energy state compared to the individual molecules of the bases, phosphates and sugars. As for information encoded in DNA, well that is another issue.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:39, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::Actually DNA is a self-assembling molecule, arranged by natural laws. Many common pieces of lab equipment use this fact to replicate, expand and sequence DNA molecules. If you take the four bases, sugars and phosphates and place them in a simple solution they will bind to form a DNA molecule. The reason for this is that the DNA configuration is a lower energy state compared to the individual molecules of the bases, phosphates and sugars. As for information encoded in DNA, well that is another issue.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:39, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: I must admit that the methods used in laboratory DNA replication, etc. is something that I don't know much about. However, the only places we have ever seen DNA forming are (a) in living things, and (b) in laboratories. This is because it simply does not occur naturally. What you are talking about is getting ''existing'' DNA to replicate or join, in very precise conditions that scientists create, which is hardly DNA being arranged simply by natural laws. Also, I found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction this] on Wikipedia (not always a trustworthy source, but probably reasonable in this case), which says "The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a technique widely used in molecular biology. It derives its name from one of its key components, a DNA polymerase used to amplify a piece of DNA by in vitro enzymatic replication." In other words, in order to amplify DNA, the process includes the ''machines'' (DNA polymerase) that I mentioned above were required. Doesn't that actually support what I was saying? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:17, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
== Ending Debate ==
== Ending Debate ==
Well, I have been blocked for 'accusations of lying'. Ironically, that, in itself, is a complete lie. I have no interest in continuing what I regarded as a healthy discussion and exchanging of views with someone who resorts to such tactics. Goodbye. [[User:Urushnor2|Urushnor2]] 16:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
Well, I have been blocked for 'accusations of lying'. Ironically, that, in itself, is a complete lie. I have no interest in continuing what I regarded as a healthy discussion and exchanging of views with someone who resorts to such tactics. Goodbye. [[User:Urushnor2|Urushnor2]] 16:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
: You said, "the reason he stopped the interview was in sheer anger at being lied to.". That is, you were accusing the producers of the video of lying. Admittedly, you were basing your accusation on what someone else has said, but you weren't putting it as a quote or attributing it to someone else, but repeating the accusation yourself. So no, that reason for the block was ''not'' a lie. Secondly, that was only one of the reasons for the block. Why didn't you mention the other? Why misrepresent the reasons for the block by only mentioning one of the reasons? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:20, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
: You said, "the reason he stopped the interview was in sheer anger at being lied to.". That is, you were accusing the producers of the video of lying. Admittedly, you were basing your accusation on what someone else has said, but you weren't putting it as a quote or attributing it to someone else, but repeating the accusation yourself. So no, that reason for the block was ''not'' a lie. Secondly, that was only one of the reasons for the block. Why didn't you mention the other? Why misrepresent the reasons for the block by only mentioning one of the reasons? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:20, 10 May 2008 (EDT)<!-- Message to Kels: Urushnor2 is /not/ blocked, and Urushnor's block--not the one I applied--will expire in a few days. -->
:: Well, as the person who said that the interviewers lied was Richard Dawkins, the person being interviewed. That is NOT a 'third party', that is a FIRST party. Secondly, if you are blocking me for saying this, I guess you're saying that this did not happen (unless, of course, you feel justified in blocking someone for stating the truth), so this means that you are accusing Richard Dawkins of lying, so feel free to block yourself for 'allegations of lying' any time. Thirdly, the reason that I did not mention the other reason for being blocked was that I was going to let that slide, as certain things I have said could be perceived as being insulting, if you're rather sensitive about such things, but since you've brought it up, let's address it - the only thing I have said that could really be perceived as an insult is that you are ignorant of science. Considering I have seen you call people ignorant of creationism or ignorant of intelligent design, blocking me for that 'insult' is blocking me for something you do yourself. There is a word that is not very nice for such actions, that begins with 'H', but I will refrain from saying it, as you will no doubt say I'm insulting you again. [[User:Urushnor2|Urushnor2]] 15:24, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::: I didn't use the term 'third party'. Saying that they didn't lie does not mean that I'm accusing Richard Dawkins of lying. It could (and does, incidentally) simply mean that I'm claiming Dawkins was ''mistaken''. Not that that justifies ''him'' making accusations of lying, but that's a separate issue.
::: As for the insult, rather than try and figure out what I must have meant, how about reading what I said (on this page) was the reason? It wasn't for calling me ignorant, so ho hypocrisy involved.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 11 May 2008 (EDT)