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 14 Jul 2010 06:10 On Jul 13, 8:22 pm, Mark K Bilbo <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > 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 You can think? (Applause please)
From: Bob T. on 14 Jul 2010 08:26 On Jul 13, 11:21 pm, Ja...(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <i1jckp$84...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Olrik > > > > > > <olrik...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Le 2010-07-13 23:18, Jason a écrit : > > > 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. > > > 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? Yes. Do you honestly believe that Jesus loves you and wants you to spend eternity in Heaven with Him? - Bob T > > - Show quoted text -
From: Ralph on 14 Jul 2010 17:18 On 7/13/2010 11:18 PM, Jason wrote: > 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. Do you understand the very thin line that separates life from non-life. I suggest that you research the thinness of that line. It is certainly not magical to believe that common chemical elements will combine with each other. It is magical to take something that science hasn't yet found a solution and claim it is the province of a magical god. A smart man like you needs to read a little history over the last 400 years and learn just how small that box for god is getting. Folks like you keep shoehorning him into smaller and smaller boxes until....POOF..he's gone.
From: Ralph on 14 Jul 2010 17:20 On 7/14/2010 2:21 AM, Jason wrote: > 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? Of course he does. Do you honestly believe that a god exists and he is the god described in the Hebrew bible? By the way, the cobbling together of the Hebrew bible is a good study on its own and every creationist needs to understand how and why the bible was written.
From: Jason on 14 Jul 2010 17:59
In article <UoqdnbBKMZSqt6PRnZ2dnUVZ_h0AAAAA(a)giganews.com>, Ralph <mmman_90(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 7/14/2010 2:21 AM, Jason wrote: > > 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? > > > > Of course he does. Do you honestly believe that a god exists and he is > the god described in the Hebrew bible? By the way, the cobbling together > of the Hebrew bible is a good study on its own and every creationist > needs to understand how and why the bible was written. Yes, I honestly believe that God exists and he is the God that is described in the Holy Bible. Thanks for your advice. |