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: Bob T. on 14 Jul 2010 00:25 On Jul 13, 8:18 pm, Ja...(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <i1iujd$3k...(a)news.datemas.de>, "Anna DeGanno" <A...(a)invalid.com> > wrote: > > > "Jason" <Ja...(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. And this is what it comes down to - you know evolution ain't so because it contradicts your faith. You aren't interested in learning why professional biologists think that evolution is true - you aren't interested in learning anything at all. You already know it all, because God whispers in your ear. - Bob T
From: Jason on 14 Jul 2010 02:21 In article <i1jckp$84u$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Olrik <olrik666(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 HTH, Do you honestly believe that life could evolve from non-life?
From: Joseki on 14 Jul 2010 06:01 On Jul 13, 7:40 pm, "skyey...(a)yahoo.com" <skyey...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Talk.Origins is a group dedicated to Bashing. Bring up a real scientific discussion and you get banned. I know Rondo, He is a Nut, and please don't insult my pet rock.
From: Joseki on 14 Jul 2010 06:03 On Jul 13, 7:42 pm, "skyey...(a)yahoo.com" <skyey...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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? > God-thingy? Craif Venter? Yeah Craig has 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? > What are these "right conditions"?
From: Joseki on 14 Jul 2010 06:07
On Jul 13, 8:01 pm, "Anna DeGanno" <A...(a)invalid.com> wrote: > "Joseki" <jabriol2...(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. :) who are "were"? I've never did. But..oh yeah, It doesn't matter of you say so it must be true..eh? |