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: Anna DeGanno on 13 Jul 2010 20:01 "Joseki" <jabriol2000(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4f6639b9-4b2d-404d-a1f2-36bba612e3b7(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com... What you describe, is called magic. I do not believe in such thing. Mud...really... We're finally getting through to you that no magical "creation" by your Jehovah ever happened no matter what BS the WTS pumps into your head 5 times a week. :)
From: Mark K Bilbo on 13 Jul 2010 20:21 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:49:17 -0700, Joseki wrote: > 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. Not knowing what *you're* talking about doesn't bear any correlation with "brightness"... -- 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 20:22 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:52:56 -0700, Joseki wrote: > 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. Where do you think I get my definitions? >> The only way for there to be *no* abiogenesis is for life to exist into >> the infinite past. > > Like Matter and energy? Now, run with that thought... -- 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: Jason on 13 Jul 2010 23:18 In article <i1iujd$3k3$1(a)news.datemas.de>, "Anna DeGanno" <AD(a)invalid.com> wrote: > "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. It's magical to believe that life could evolve from non-life.
From: Olrik on 13 Jul 2010 23:58
Le 2010-07-13 23:18, Jason a �crit : > In article<i1iujd$3k3$1(a)news.datemas.de>, "Anna DeGanno"<AD(a)invalid.com> > wrote: > >> "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. > > It's magical to believe that life could evolve from non-life. It's called "chemistry". That science, among others, will help you when you get cancer. HTH |