1. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86340
    31 Aug '11 20:07
    Anyone got any idea how to make one of these?
  2. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    31 Aug '11 20:12
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Anyone got any idea how to make one of these?
    It's just a fancy micelle of grease. You make those by dripping oily stuff into water.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    31 Aug '11 21:09
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Anyone got any idea how to make one of these?
    Why make one when you can harvest them? I believe most cells have them in.

    Or are you planning a synthetic cell project?
  4. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    01 Sep '11 00:41
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Anyone got any idea how to make one of these?
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
  5. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86340
    01 Sep '11 05:49
    So,

    Science doesn't have an explanation for something wonderful = questioner is being 'incredulous'

    Creationist doesn't have an explanation for something wonderful = creation is wrong
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52615
    01 Sep '11 05:59
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Anyone got any idea how to make one of these?
    Are you talking about this?:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golgi_apparatus
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    01 Sep '11 06:07
    Originally posted by divegeester
    So,

    Science doesn't have an explanation for something wonderful = questioner is being 'incredulous'

    Creationist doesn't have an explanation for something wonderful = creation is wrong
    No.

    Creationist claims science doesn't have an answer for something, and concludes that God did it - Creationist is using the fallacious 'argument from incredulity'.

    Creationist doesn't have an explanation for something, but science does, - creationist is rejecting science for religious reasons.

    So, are you going to tell us the point of this thread? Were you just trying to prove that science doesn't know everything yet? I don't think anyone will dispute that.
  8. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86340
    01 Sep '11 06:08
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Are you talking about this?:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golgi_apparatus
    That link is definitely a description of the Golgi Apparatus.
  9. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86340
    01 Sep '11 06:15
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    No.

    Creationist claims science doesn't have an answer for something, and concludes that God did it - Creationist is using the fallacious 'argument from incredulity'.

    Creationist doesn't have an explanation for something, but science does, - creationist is rejecting science for religious reasons.

    So, are you going to tell us the point of this thre ...[text shortened]... to prove that science doesn't know everything yet? I don't think anyone will dispute that.
    The point is as you (almost state in your post) that science knows very little the universe and yet the attitude here is often that it knows it all or at least what it doesn't know should not be questioned, as JS357 and you demonstrated.

    So yes:

    Science doesn't have an explanation for something wonderful = questioner is being 'incredulous'

    Creationist doesn't have an explanation for something wonderful = creation is wrong


    Is a valid response, at least in this forum.
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    01 Sep '11 08:052 edits
    Originally posted by divegeester
    The point is as you (almost state in your post) that science knows very little the universe and yet the attitude here is often that it knows it all or at least what it doesn't know should not be questioned, as JS357 and you demonstrated.
    Where have you seen anyone (other than Dasa) claim to 'know it all'?
    Where have you seen anyone claim that what science does not know should not been questioned?
    Where did I or JS357 demonstrate this?

    Maybe the problem is that I do not understand the question. What is your question with regards to my (and according to Wikipedia, science's) ignorance of how to make a Golgi Apparatus?

    Did you read the link given regarding the "Argument from Incredulity"?
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52615
    02 Sep '11 14:22
    Originally posted by divegeester
    That link is definitely a description of the Golgi Apparatus.
    So your real argument goes Creationism is the only way life could have started and developed here on Earth. You really have no interest in actually constructing Golgi's.
    I think they call that the strawman argument.
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    03 Sep '11 01:28
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    So your real argument goes Creationism is the only way life could have started and developed here on Earth. You really have no interest in actually constructing Golgi's.
    I think they call that the strawman argument.
    How about the endoplasmic reticulum?
  13. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52615
    03 Sep '11 02:37
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    How about the endoplasmic reticulum?
    Been googling again?
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    03 Sep '11 05:23
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Been googling again?
    Yep. I can do that too.
  15. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52615
    03 Sep '11 13:361 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Yep. I can do that too.
    Wow, so you bring up all the things science cannot do at this time and use that as an argument that everything science has to say is totally off the wall. That is like chiding a 3 year old for not being able to do calculus.

    Come back in a couple hundred years and see how much science can do, THEN give that argument again.

    You do realize science in general is only a few hundred years old, right? That scientists have a lot more to learn and will learn in the future, right? That science is a work in progress?

    For instance, scientists cannot make a spacecraft go anything like the speed of light, but would you like to bet that within 200 years or so we might be able to do just that?
Back to Top