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: Joseki on 13 Jul 2010 18:52 On Jul 13, 6:43 pm, Mark K Bilbo <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:43:13 -0700, Jason wrote: > > In article > > <6699cd80-6bca-4280-bbf9-1a8fd6c3b...(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > > Joseki <jabriol2...(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. Real scientists would doubt your definition and sanity. > The only way for there to be *no* abiogenesis is for life > to exist into the infinite past. > Like Matter and energy?
From: skyeyes9 on 13 Jul 2010 19:40 On Jul 12, 2:08 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 4:20 am, Joseki <jabriol2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 12, 4:59 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 11, 6:54 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 11, 7:01 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 11, 3:47 am, Joseki <jabriol2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 9:17 pm, Mark K Bilbo <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:29:14 -0700, Joseki wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 6:20 pm, Mark K Bilbo <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:02:36 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > > > > > >> > In article <4c38b...(a)news.x-privat.org>, "Saint Heretica" > > > > > > > >> > <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> >> "Jason" <Ja...(a)nospam.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > >> >>news:Jason-0907102132490001(a)66-53-211-207.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com... > > > > > > > >> >> > Your faith in Abiogenesis is as strong as the faith of Christians > > > > > > > >> >> > in creation science. > > > > > > > > >> >> You've been told many times in the past that there is no evidence > > > > > > > >> >> for a > > > > > > > >> >> magical "creation." There is much evidence for > > > > > > > >> >> abiogenesis/evolution. It's been posted here many times for you over > > > > > > > >> >> the years. You refuse to read it and discuss it rationally with > > > > > > > >> >> anyone. You're still spouting the same nonsense you've been > > > > > > > >> >> spouting for years. > > > > > > > > >> > There is no proof that abiogenesis has ever taken place. > > > > > > > > >> So you believe life has existed forever? What about the apparent age of > > > > > > > >> the universe? > > > > > > > > > Well, that is a good question. I guess life is as old as Energy and > > > > > > > > Matter. : "Energy can neither be created nor can be destroyed but only > > > > > > > > can be transformed." so some people started to think energy is sacred or > > > > > > > > eternal however when they said energy can not be created they do not > > > > > > > > mean it is eternal but they mean it is not created from nothingness. > > > > > > > > Since it can transform there is a start and finish of the transformation > > > > > > > > per se. > > > > > > > > Then there was a point where there was no life? > > > > > > Do you mean to say that the feldspar paperweight on my desk is > > > > > alive? > > > > > You never know, maybe you can teach it some tricks. > > > > So far, it has "stay" down pat, but that's about it. > > > > Whether you accept Creation or Evolution, there was a point in time > > > where there was no life. Get over it. > > > Prove it. I mean use the scientific method and prove it. If you can't, > > then Gazoo of the ultraverse started life and get over it. > > Carefully read what I actually wrote, not what you want to imagine I > wrote. > > Creation argues that a deity assembled non-living matter and imbued > it with life. That is a statement of fact; ask any Creationist. > > Evolution argues that non-living matter can, under certain > circumstances, self-assemble into living matter. That is a statement > of fact; ask any Evolutionist. > > In both cases there are assumed to be times when there was no living > matter; in the Creationist case, before the deity got around to the > task, and for Evolution, before the necessary circumstances existed. > > You, however, seem to believe that all matter, whether or not it > qualifies as "alive" by ordinary biochemistry, is "alive" in some > sense. There's somebody over on talk.origins that Jabbers ought to meet. He's a Dutch convert to islam who uses the nym "nando_ronteltap." He believes rocks have free will. He and Joseki/Jabriol should pair up and take their act on the road. Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 BAAWA Knight EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
From: skyeyes9 on 13 Jul 2010 19:42 On Jul 12, 4:15 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 5:08 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Care to prove that using the scientific method? > > Nope, because I didn't say it. However with the scientific method I > can prove life comes from life. In Craig Venter who made the Synth > cell was quite alive when his team did this. So you believe that your god-thingy is alive in the sense that it has a physical body and DNA? And by the way: please demonstrate why life - which we know is not an either/or thing - cannot arise from ordinary chemical processes, given the right conditions? Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 BAAWA Knight EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
From: skyeyes9 on 13 Jul 2010 19:53 On Jul 13, 12:43 pm, Ja...(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article > <6699cd80-6bca-4280-bbf9-1a8fd6c3b...(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > Joseki <jabriol2...(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. Actually, there are many, many people in the biological sciences who know evolution to be a fact who *do* believe that there is a god that caused the chemical processes to work the way they needed to in order to produce life, and then caused life to evolve the way it wanted using natural processes. They're called "theistic evolutionists" and there are quite a few of them. The fact is, *if* there's a god, there's no reason s/he couldn't do her/his creating purely through natural processes. You are the one who wants to put limits on your god by saying the *only* way it could create and multiply life forms is through magick. >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. "Primordial pond" is old, old stuff. Nowadays, we whipper-snappers think that there's a much better chance that life formed, oh, in the undersea vents of volcanos ("black smokers"), where even today bacteria called "extremophiles" proliferate. Or life could have formed in moist clay lattices, or even in fissures deep under the earth. Or maybe even off-planet, after which it was deposited on the surface (probably by meteorites) and was able to spread. But "primordial pond"? How 1950s. I mean, Jeezus, Jason, if you're gonna argue this stuff, at *least* try to make it interesting and timely. "Primordial pond"? Please. Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 BAAWA Knight EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
From: Anna DeGanno on 13 Jul 2010 19:58
"Jason" <Jason(a)nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1307101243130001(a)67-150-127-253.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com... > > 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. > Why do you keep calling creation a science when it isn't science. It's magical beliefs based on ancient scrolls. There is no evidence for a magical mystical fantastical creation. |