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: Ralph on 14 Jul 2010 20:09 On 7/14/2010 6:02 PM, Jason wrote: > In article<UoqdnbFKMZQ5tKPRnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Ralph > <mmman_90(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > Have you ever considered that God took the necessary chemical elements and > combined them with each other to make life on this earth? That makes much > more sense to me than to believe that it all happened by chance which is > what most evolutionists do believe. Mankind is far too complex to have > happened as a result of chance. > > If the elements combined, how can you call that chance. It would appear to me that those particular elements have a propensity to combine and that certainly isn't chance
From: Jason on 14 Jul 2010 20:50 In article <4c3e38df(a)news.x-privat.org>, "Ips-Switch" <Ips-Switch(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason(a)nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1307102321560001(a)67-150-120-159.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com... > > Do you honestly believe that life could evolve from non-life? > > > > Yes. Why not? Why do you find it so hard to believe and accept? Because it does not happen by chance.
From: Jason on 14 Jul 2010 20:55 In article <kdWdnZLUPdVKzKPRnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Ralph <mmman_90(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 7/14/2010 6:02 PM, Jason wrote: > > In article<UoqdnbFKMZQ5tKPRnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Ralph > > <mmman_90(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > > Have you ever considered that God took the necessary chemical elements and > > combined them with each other to make life on this earth? That makes much > > more sense to me than to believe that it all happened by chance which is > > what most evolutionists do believe. Mankind is far too complex to have > > happened as a result of chance. > > > > > > > If the elements combined, how can you call that chance. It would appear > to me that those particular elements have a propensity to combine and > that certainly isn't chance It makes more sense to believe that it happened by design and not by chance. Let's say that a chemistry professor combined a dozen chemicals in an experiment and got the exact result that he wanted to get. Let's say that I placed those same chemicals in a sealed container and blew it up. Do you think that I would get a successful result? I doubt it.
From: Jason on 14 Jul 2010 20:57 In article <i1ld94$j7s$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Olrik <olrik666(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Le 2010-07-14 18:02, Jason a �crit : > > In article<UoqdnbFKMZQ5tKPRnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Ralph > > <mmman_90(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > > Have you ever considered that God took the necessary chemical elements and > > combined them with each other to make life on this earth? That makes much > > more sense to me than to believe that it all happened by chance which is > > what most evolutionists do believe. Mankind is far too complex to have > > happened as a result of chance. > > So in order to "explain" that complexity, you imagine a "being" that > would be orders of magnitude more complex ? That's illogical and > borderline stupid. I believe that it is illogical to believe that mankind could have come about by chance.
From: Joseki on 14 Jul 2010 23:01
On Jul 14, 6:29 pm, "Anna DeGanno" <A...(a)invalid.com> wrote: > "Joseki" <jabriol2...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:16f351f1-604f-486b-8f4d-10c0d1ac15df(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > 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? > > -------------- > > Are you or are you not still a Jehovah's Witness? You know everything and everything you say must be true. So does it matter what I am or not? the only thing important to you is you, and the idiots who believe you. |