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: Jason on 20 Jul 2010 17:04 > > I don't whether or not it > > refers to single or multi-celled life forms such as protozoan. However, > > Darwin did NOT use the term organisms. He used the term "forms". That > > could mean both plants and animals. > > Ah, so if "organisms" means "animals", then animals are not > beautiful and wonderful? > > It might be easier to hold a coherent conversation with you if > everyone used the same meanings for specific terms. Or at least, > stated their preferred meanings for them. > > Biologists use the term to indicate a living thing comprising > differentiated tissues that perform specific functions, AKA "organs". > Usually this means fairly large multicellular forms, like say humans. > Often it is broadened to include single-celled forms which are > differentiated into "organelles", like say single-celled algae which > contain organelles like chloroplasts. However, "organelleism" is an > awkward word. > > I suppose we could get into what "beautiful" and "wonderful" mean, > but terms like those are value judgments. Biologists (and others, such > as me, with my engineering mindset) tend to consider any living thing, > even those slimy little protozoa, as both. That you apparently can not > is your loss. > > > Mark L. Fergerson I understand your points. I continue to believe that Darwin was discussing animals and PLANTS. Biologists and engineers may consider single celled life forms (eg portozoa) as beautiful and wonderful. However, almost everyone in this world has seen wonderful and beautiful animals--including Darwin. That is the reason I believe Darwin was discussing plants and animals in hiw quotation which is below. Do you agree with my interpretation? Charles Darwin (in his famous book) stated: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being, evolved." My interpretation: God breathed life into Adam and perhaps also into Eve. God also created an endless number of beautiful and wonderful plants and animals. After the creation process was finished is when evolution kicked in.
From: Jason on 20 Jul 2010 17:08 In article <i24kks$mjl$2(a)news.datemas.de>, "Anna DeGanno" <AD(a)invalid.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason(a)nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1907102345370001(a)67-150-123-117.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com... > > In article <i2382s$1h6$1(a)news.datemas.de>, "Anna DeGanno" <AD(a)invalid.com> > > wrote: > >> Darwin makes no mention of a god creating mankind. You're adding the > >> "god" > >> to his works. What will you add next? > > > "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having > > been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst > > this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, > > from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful > > have been and are being, evolved." > > � Charles Darwin > > > > My interpretation: > > > God breathed life into Adam and perhaps also into Eve. God also created an > > endless number of beautiful and wonderful plants and animals. After the > > creation process was finished is when evolution kicked in. > > Well, there is no way to educate you, I can see that. No matter what book > you read you will do as the WTS's GB do and change the meaning of what the > author wrote. You've learned from the GB that's it's OK to do such a > dishonest thing. > Darwin never mentioned a god or an Adam and Eve. What do you believe he was stating when he referred when he stated: "breathed into a few forms or into one"?
From: Mark K Bilbo on 20 Jul 2010 17:12 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 11:54:13 -0500, Parish *~ wrote: > "Mark K Bilbo" <gmail(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote in message > news:8alps7F2p5U20(a)mid.individual.net... >> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:47:26 -0500, Parish *~ wrote: >> >>> "Jason" <Jason(a)nospam.com> wrote in message >>> news:Jason-1907100133520001(a)66-53-209-75.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com... >>>> In article >>>> <30f9f50b-09a1-4e69-b670-6c805d584a89(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, >>>> >>>> Why do you believe that Darwin made this statement: >>>> >>>> "There is grandeur in this view of life, HAVING BEEN ORIGINALLY >>>> BREATHED [BY THE CREATOR] INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE; and that from >>>> so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most >>>> wonderful have been, and are being evolved." >>> >>> First, why are you adding [BY THE CREATOR] to what he wrote? None of >>> us can know what he had in his mind at the time. >> >> Actually, I think we can. Never authoritatively of course but, still. >> >> If you read about his life, Darwin was a bit what we'd call "anal" >> today. As he could not say with certainty how *life* began, he left the >> door open for the first cell or cells or whatever to have been >> "created". We'd call it "theistic evolution" or consider it deistic >> these days. >> >> There was also a bit of fear involved. Fear of the reaction of the >> Christians (Darwin was quite rational). He left them an "out" with the >> origin of life, his theory killing special creation of "kinds" as it >> did. >> >> I mean, he knew he was yanking the rug out from under the Eden myth. He >> hedged by leaving a gap for god to retreat to. <g> >> >> Not to mention, deism was much more prevalent and acceptable in the >> past of the US than recent history. The "clockwork god" who wound >> things up then went on vacation was more common a belief than later in >> our history. As in we went through quite a religious mania starting in >> the late 19th century and the modern fundamentalist movement was born >> in the early 20th. A nation born of the Enlightenment kind of threw >> things into reverse gear all of the sudden. > > > Thank you. Very interesting. :) Darwin was an interesting guy. <g> -- Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion ------------------------------------------------------------ "You know, I'd get it if people were just looking for a way to fill the holes. But they want the holes. They wanna live in the holes. And they go nuts when someone else pours dirt in their holes. "Climb out of your holes people!" - Dr. House, on faith
From: Jason on 20 Jul 2010 17:19 In article <mr2dndV2teQ3c9jRnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Ralph <mmman_90(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 7/20/2010 2:51 AM, Jason wrote: > > In article<i2368n$pjf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "Parish *~" > > <Parish(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > >> "Jason"<Jason(a)nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-1907100133520001(a)66-53-209-75.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com... > >>> In article > >>> <30f9f50b-09a1-4e69-b670-6c805d584a89(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > >>> > >>> Why do you believe that Darwin made this statement: > >>> > >>> "There is grandeur in this view of life, HAVING BEEN > >>> ORIGINALLY BREATHED [BY THE CREATOR] INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE; and > >>> that from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most > >>> wonderful have been, and are being evolved." > >> > >> First, why are you adding [BY THE CREATOR] to what he wrote? None of us can > >> know what he had in his mind at the time. > >> > >>> I define it to mean that Darwin believed God breathed life into Adam and > >>> perhaps also into Eve and that God made an endless number of plants and > >>> animals that were beautiful and wonderful. Those plants and animals later > >>> evolved. > >> > >> Where has Darwin mentioned Adam and Eve? Why are you adding them to what he > >> wrote. He never mentioned them. > > > > It's obvious to me that he was talking about God. You are looking at his > > statement with evolution colored glasses. I am looking at his statement > > knowing full well that Darwin had an excellent understanding of the Bible > > and even planned to become a minister. In those days, the vast majority of > > the people in the world were Christians. > > > What is so obvious to you isn't so obvious to the rest of us. If Darwin > wanted to say that why didn't he just say it? He certainly could have > made things much easier for himself if he had. He didn't, however, > because he didn't feel that it was so. I believe that it is fairly easy to understand his above statement. It's fairly easy for me to understand it since I know that Darwin was a Christian during the early years of his life and even considered becoming a preacher. He had an excellent understanding of the Bible. I compared his statement to this scripture and his statement made perfect sense: Genesis 2: 7 And the Lord God formed man out ofthe dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living soul. Darwin's statement: "There is grandeur in this view of life, HAVING BEEN ORIGINALLY BREATHED INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE
From: Jason on 20 Jul 2010 17:21
In article <8alps7F2p5U20(a)mid.individual.net>, Mark K Bilbo <gmail(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:47:26 -0500, Parish *~ wrote: > > > "Jason" <Jason(a)nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Jason-1907100133520001(a)66-53-209-75.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com... > >> In article > >> <30f9f50b-09a1-4e69-b670-6c805d584a89(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > >> > >> Why do you believe that Darwin made this statement: > >> > >> "There is grandeur in this view of life, HAVING BEEN ORIGINALLY > >> BREATHED [BY THE CREATOR] INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE; and that from > >> so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful > >> have been, and are being evolved." > > > > First, why are you adding [BY THE CREATOR] to what he wrote? None of us > > can know what he had in his mind at the time. > > Actually, I think we can. Never authoritatively of course but, still. > > If you read about his life, Darwin was a bit what we'd call "anal" today. > As he could not say with certainty how *life* began, he left the door > open for the first cell or cells or whatever to have been "created". We'd > call it "theistic evolution" or consider it deistic these days. > > There was also a bit of fear involved. Fear of the reaction of the > Christians (Darwin was quite rational). He left them an "out" with the > origin of life, his theory killing special creation of "kinds" as it did. > > I mean, he knew he was yanking the rug out from under the Eden myth. He > hedged by leaving a gap for god to retreat to. <g> > > Not to mention, deism was much more prevalent and acceptable in the past > of the US than recent history. The "clockwork god" who wound things up > then went on vacation was more common a belief than later in our history. > As in we went through quite a religious mania starting in the late 19th > century and the modern fundamentalist movement was born in the early > 20th. A nation born of the Enlightenment kind of threw things into > reverse gear all of the sudden. Thanks for an excellent post. |