What do real scientist say about Abiogenesis:Alexandre Meinesz:
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Einstein...The Creationists' Friend.
Next: look upon 231! not as #rearrangements but as volume or time Chapt 19 #221 Atom Totality
From: Mark K Bilbo on 13 Jul 2010 18:40 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:20:25 -0700, Joseki wrote: > On Jul 13, 12:34 pm, Mark K Bilbo <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 07:58:26 -0700, Joseki wrote: >> > On Jul 13, 10:20 am, Mark K Bilbo <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 02:58:02 -0700, Joseki wrote: >> >> > On Jul 12, 11:32 pm, Mark K Bilbo <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:15:12 -0700, Joseki wrote: >> >> >> > Nope I didn't say that. I said Life like matter and energy >> >> >> > can't be created just transformed. >> >> >> >> Wouldn't that end the case for any creation at all? >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 EAC Department of >> >> >> Linguistic Subversion >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys >> >> >> on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like >> >> >> Shakespeare!" >> >> >> >> -- Blair Houghton >> >> >> > No. Dr. Craig Venter Created a synthetic Cell from known organic >> >> > material. This cell has no parents. It is alive by definition. >> >> >> If its components were not alive, that's abiogenesis. >> >> >> By, ahem, definition... >> >> > http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Abiogenesis >> >> So your claim is that "organic material" is alive? >> >> In what sense? >> >> > Not really. We have to wonder why is term "Organic" used. No "we" don't. Apparently you're still pondering the word "the". Let's try simplifying. Biogenesis is when a mommy and a daddy love each other very, very much and the daddy puts a baby in the mommy's belly. See, that's life from living things as the mommy and the daddy have to be alive for the process to work. *A*biogenesis is when life emerges from non-life. Including, by definition, the Genesis myth in the Bible where a "god" or "gods" make a living being out of non-living mud. -- Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion ------------------------------------------------------------ "How did you hurt your back? Running away from good taste?" -- Karen Walker
From: Mark K Bilbo on 13 Jul 2010 18:41 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:23:38 -0700, Joseki wrote: > On Jul 13, 12:36 pm, Mark K Bilbo <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 07:54:17 -0700, Joseki wrote: >> > On Jul 13, 9:06 am, martin <use...(a)etiqa.co.uk> wrote: >> >> On 13/07/2010 13:28, Joseki wrote: >> >> >> > On Jul 13, 8:20 am, martin<use...(a)etiqa.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >> On 13/07/2010 13:09, Joseki wrote: >> >> >> >>> Have you seen otherwise? Life from life can be demonstrated with >> >> >>> the scientific method. With Probability, that would be a 1. seen >> >> >>> it has been done and is still being done... But Abiogenesis just >> >> >>> doesn't fit the math nor Scientific method. >> >> >> >> Yet we're here. Ergo the probability of life arising from >> >> >> non-life is exactly 1 >> >> >> >>>> Mark L. Fergerson >> >> >> > No it is not. A creationist, which I am not, can say a an old man >> >> > critter snap us into being and then reply: "Yet we're here. Ergo >> >> > the probability of life arising from Magic is exactly 1. >> >> >> That doesn't matter, even a creationist reading the most strict >> >> version of the bible has to accept abiogenesis. It's in black and >> >> white. God picked up a handful of mud and breathed life into it. If >> >> that doesn't qualify nothing will. >> >> > It doesn't. read the definition for abiogenesis. Very educational. >> >> Even by one of your own cites: >> >> "Abiogenesis is the proposal that life emerged from non-life..." >> >> > > I mention the particular cite due to the fact, that creationist will not > accept this. And many evolutionist will give it the wrong spin. I have reason to doubt your veracity. But let's run with it shall we? Life from non-life would include a "god" making a man out of mud as the man is a living being and the mud is not alive. Hence, the Genesis myth *is* abiogenesis. -- Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion ------------------------------------------------------------ "Just because it's inexplicted doesn't mean it's inexplicable." - Dr. House
From: Mark K Bilbo on 13 Jul 2010 18:43 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:43:13 -0700, Jason wrote: > In article > <6699cd80-6bca-4280-bbf9-1a8fd6c3b818(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > Joseki <jabriol2000(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 13, 12:36=A0pm, Mark K Bilbo <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: >> > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 07:54:17 -0700, Joseki wrote: >> > > On Jul 13, 9:06=A0am, martin <use...(a)etiqa.co.uk> wrote: >> > >> On 13/07/2010 13:28, Joseki wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Jul 13, 8:20 am, martin<use...(a)etiqa.co.uk> =A0wrote: >> > >> >> On 13/07/2010 13:09, Joseki wrote: >> > >> > >> >>> Have you seen otherwise? Life from life can be demonstrated >> > >> >>> with the scientific method. With Probability, that would be a >> > >> >>> 1. seen i= >> t >> > >> >>> has been done and is still being done... But Abiogenesis just >> > >> >>> doesn't fit the math nor Scientific method. >> > >> > >> >> Yet we're here. Ergo the probability of life arising from >> > >> >> non-life is exactly 1 >> > >> > >> >>>> =A0 =A0 Mark L. Fergerson >> > >> > >> > No it is not. A creationist, which I am not, can say a an old >> > >> > =A0man critter snap us into being and then reply: "Yet we're >> > >> > here. Ergo the probability of life arising from Magic is >> > >> > =A0exactly 1. >> > >> > >> That doesn't matter, even a creationist reading the most strict >> > >> versio= >> n >> > >> of the bible has to accept abiogenesis. It's in black and white. >> > >> God picked up a handful of mud and breathed life into it. If that >> > >> doesn't qualify nothing will. >> > >> > > It doesn't. read the definition for abiogenesis. Very educational. >> > >> > Even by one of your own cites: >> > >> > "Abiogenesis is the proposal that life emerged from non-life..." >> > >> > >> >> I mention the particular cite due to the fact, that creationist will >> not accept this. And many evolutionist will give it the wrong spin. > > I am an advocate of creation science. God creating life from non-life > would be defined as "creation". Abiogenesis is for the most part a term > that is used by evolutionists to explain how life began on this planet. > The evolutionists do NOT believe that God played a role. For example, > the primordial pond theory is a type of abiogenesis. How a word is used > is very important. The word in question is used by evolutionists and not > a word that is used in a positive way by the advocates of creation > science. Abiogenesis is any time life comes from non-living materials. "Creation" is abiogenesis. The only way for there to be *no* abiogenesis is for life to exist into the infinite past. -- Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion ------------------------------------------------------------ "Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you're told. Religion is doing what you're told, not matter what is right." - Jerry Sturdivant
From: Joseki on 13 Jul 2010 18:49 On Jul 13, 6:31 pm, Mark K Bilbo <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:19:17 -0700, Joseki wrote: > > There seem to be a debate between creationist wannabe and evolutionist > > wannabe on the definition. Using the laymen term, the cite would support > > my view. > > No, you just don't appear to have a clue what you're talking about... > > -- Or you are not bright enough to understand what I am talking about. It easy to call some clueless to deflect their own ignorance.
From: Joseki on 13 Jul 2010 18:50
On Jul 13, 6:41 pm, Mark K Bilbo <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:23:38 -0700, Joseki wrote: > > On Jul 13, 12:36 pm, Mark K Bilbo <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > >> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 07:54:17 -0700, Joseki wrote: > >> > On Jul 13, 9:06 am, martin <use...(a)etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> On 13/07/2010 13:28, Joseki wrote: > > >> >> > On Jul 13, 8:20 am, martin<use...(a)etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> >> On 13/07/2010 13:09, Joseki wrote: > > >> >> >>> Have you seen otherwise? Life from life can be demonstrated with > >> >> >>> the scientific method. With Probability, that would be a 1. seen > >> >> >>> it has been done and is still being done... But Abiogenesis just > >> >> >>> doesn't fit the math nor Scientific method. > > >> >> >> Yet we're here. Ergo the probability of life arising from > >> >> >> non-life is exactly 1 > > >> >> >>>> Mark L. Fergerson > > >> >> > No it is not. A creationist, which I am not, can say a an old man > >> >> > critter snap us into being and then reply: "Yet we're here. Ergo > >> >> > the probability of life arising from Magic is exactly 1. > > >> >> That doesn't matter, even a creationist reading the most strict > >> >> version of the bible has to accept abiogenesis. It's in black and > >> >> white. God picked up a handful of mud and breathed life into it. If > >> >> that doesn't qualify nothing will. > > >> > It doesn't. read the definition for abiogenesis. Very educational. > > >> Even by one of your own cites: > > >> "Abiogenesis is the proposal that life emerged from non-life..." > > > I mention the particular cite due to the fact, that creationist will not > > accept this. And many evolutionist will give it the wrong spin. > > I have reason to doubt your veracity. > > But let's run with it shall we? Life from non-life would include a "god" > making a man out of mud as the man is a living being and the mud is not > alive. Hence, the Genesis myth *is* abiogenesis. > > -- > Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 > EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion > ------------------------------------------------------------ > What you describe, is called magic. I do not believe in such thing. Mud...really... |